Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ADOLF HITLER

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proof His Majesty's Government have that Hitler is dead; and if he will make a full statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. McNeil): His Majesty's Government have no evidence proving conclusively either that Hitler is dead or that he is alive. Further investigations are however being made. My right hon. Friend does not consider a full statement would serve any useful purpose.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the hon. Gentleman through the Foreign Office, inform the House when there is any definite information?

Mr. McNeil: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND

Forces (British Citizenship)

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any further statement as to the granting of British nationality to Polish Forces; whether this can be arranged for those Forces who are now being posted to France and elsewhere for their demobilisation; and what steps he proposes to take to have such Forces as wish to become British subjects demobilised in this country, thus saving them expense in returning here.

Mr. McNeil: I can add nothing to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Gammans) on 9th October.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that the sense of the country is that we want to do all we can for the Battle of Britain pilots and others who survived, but that by this long delay we are almost deliberately forcing them back and not making it possible for them to become British subjects?

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend would not accept that implication. We are not running away from the hope which has been expressed but, as I have already said, we cannot even get an estimate of the size of this problem.

Katyn Massacres (Punishment)

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to bring to trial, as war criminals, those responsible for the murder of 10,000 Polish officers at Katyn.

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether those responsible for the murder of several thousand Polish soldiers at Katyn, near Smolensk, in April, 1943, have yet been arrested, or what steps are being taken to apprehend them and bring them to trial.

Mr. McNeil: I should like to refer the hon. Members to the written reply which I gave to the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) on 10th October. This was to the effect that since the victims of this massacre were of Polish nationality and the offence took place on Soviet soil, it would be under the terms of the Three-Power Declaration issued at Moscow on 1st November, 1943, difficult and inappropriate for His Majesty's Government to take the initiative. However, the hon. Members can rest assured that the question of including this subject was not overlooked when the indictment of the major German war criminals was drawn up. So far as I am aware, those responsible for the actual perpetration of this crime have not yet been discovered and arrested.

Major Lloyd: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him whether, in view of the mystery which


still prevails in regard to this terrible murder, the Government would take the initiative in inviting the Great Powers to set up an international commission of investigation, in order that the perpetrators of this crime may be brought to justice? Further, is the hon. Gentleman looking in the proper quarter for the authors of this crime?

Mr. McNeil: As I have already explained, under the terms of the agreement it would not be proper for us to take the initiative. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any information or evidence, the Government would be very eager to consider it.

Major Lloyd: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, and in order to do something to comply with the hon. Gentleman's request, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

Former London Government (Winding Up)

Mr. Williamson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in winding up the former Polish Government in London.

Mr. McNeil: As the reply is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the reply:

Upon the recognition by His Majesty's Government of the Polish Provisional Government in Warsaw, the Polish Government in London ceased to exist. His Majesty's Government entrusted the Interim Treasury Committee for Polish Questions with the task of liquidating the affairs of the latter Government and, at the same time, of maintaining essential welfare services. The Polish Ministries in London were closed; rapid steps were taken to terminate their political activities; and all assets of the London Polish Government came under the complete control of the Committee.

The Interim Treasury Committee are now well advanced in their task of winding up the affairs of the former Polish Government Departments other than those concerned with welfare services. In view of the fact that a large number of Poles here and abroad were dependent financially and administratively upon the London Government, which in turn was almost entirely financed through advances made

by His Majesty's Government, the continuance of such services was necessary if these Poles were not to be caused undue hardship owing to the withdrawal of recognition by His Majesty's Government from the London Government. The Committee took over the care and maintenance of Polish refugees abroad, many of whom are to be found in the Dominions and Colonies, the payment of pensions to disabled soldiers and war widows and the upkeep of Polish hospitals and educational establishments in the United Kingdom. These activities and the other affairs and assets of the former Polish Government in London must necessarily remain under the control of the Interim Treasury Committee until a general settlement of all these matters has been reached with the Polish Provisional Government in Warsaw. Discussions on this question were begun in July with a Commission sent here by the Polish Provisional Government for this purpose under Monsieur Drozniak. He was, however, recalled to Warsaw for instructions on 20th August. Although His Majesty's Government repeatedly indicated to the Polish authorities that they were anxious for his early return in order to expedite an agreed settlement, he did not come back to this country till 10th October. Discussions are now being resumed. Meanwhile His Majesty's Government have made it clear to the Polish Government that no settlement would be satisfactory that did not cover the question of the liability of the Polish Provisional Government for outstanding Polish indebtedness to His Majesty's Government and did not ensure that the Poles who shared with us the fortunes of war should receive treatment acceptable to British public opinion.

Poles, Great Britain (Employment)

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the ban prohibiting the Poles in this country, who do not desire to return to Poland, from taking up employment in this country will be lifted.

Mr. McNeil: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service that no such ban exists and I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the Members for South Portsmouth (Major Sir J. Lucas) and Hornsey (Captain Gammans) on 11th October.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will the Minister state the conditions under which these discharged men may take up employment?

Mr. McNeil: There is no distinction between the nationals to whom my right hon. Friend refers, and any other aliens temporarily resident in this country. As to the conditions applying to registration, that is, of course, a matter for the Minister of Labour.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can the Minister say what are the conditions under which they can take up employment later on?

Mr. McNeil: I do not think I shall have to apologise for not knowing the answer, because this is a matter for the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is it not the case that work cannot be accepted unless the Minister of Labour gives special permission in each individual case; and is that permission only given if the work is approved?

Mr. McNeil: In reply to the first part of the question, that is not my information. As to the second part, I think that is a question which ought to be put to the Minister of Labour.

Forces (Repatriation)

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs it he can state the percentage of Poles in the Armed Forces in Britain, Germany and Italy, who expressed, under the recent plebiscite, a desire to return to Poland.

Mr. McNeil: No plebiscite has in fact been held. Facilities have, however, been given to any member of the Polish Forces to come forward and volunteer for repatriation to Poland. The offer is still open. So far the following percentage has volunteered:
United Kingdom, 33 per cent; B.A.O.R., 1 per cent; A.F.H.Q., 14 per cent.; Middle East, 4·5 per cent., giving a total, 17·9 per cent. Out of the 207,000 Poles in the Armed Forces under British control, 37,060 have so far volunteered to return.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: In view of the very small percentage who desire to return to Poland, can the Minister say what

is the Government's policy with regard to the future of those who do not desire to return?

Mr. McNeil: I have already given an answer to that question and, at any rate, this process is not yet completed.

Mr. Gallacher: Is there not a most savage and unscrupulous propaganda being carried on among these Polish soldiers to persuade them not to go back, and is not lie upon lie being told to them about conditions in Poland?

Mr. McNeil: So far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, that is not the truth. We have made it plain in the House that we consider that Poles should return to Poland when they leave this country, and get the assurances which were given to His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any significance in the considerably smaller percentage of those who want to return, among those now serving on the Continent of Europe, who are perhaps now seeing things with their own eyes?

Mr. McNeil: I am afraid I have no information on that subject.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long this offer will remain open?

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir; I should like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.N.R.R.A.

State Contributions (Arrears)

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will issue a statement showing the contributions due to U.N.R.R.A. by each country and the names of those countries who are wholly or partially in arrears with their contributions.

The Minister of State (Mr. Noel-Baker): I have been asked to reply. A statement showing the amounts contributed to U.N.R.R.A. by the various member States was issued by the Administration in August last. The statement shows the contributions made both to the operating and to the administrative expenses of the organisation. I have done my best to bring this statement up to date, and I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the result.

Captain Gammans: Could the right hon. Gentleman say which countries are at this moment in arrear with their payments?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I thing the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better look at the statement. He can then put down other Questions if he feels inclined.

Food Supplies (Distribution)

Lieut.-Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that much of the food supplies sent by this country through U.N.R.R.A. is finding its way in Balkan countries, especially in Yugoslavia, into the hands of the military forces in those countries instead of to the civilian population; that it is popularly supposed to be coming from Russian sources; and what steps U.N.R.R.A. is taking to ensure that supplies reach the persons for whom they are intended.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have been asked to reply. I have consulted the European Director of U.N.R.R.A. and I understand that it is the Administration's policy to ensure that their supplies are made available to civilians only, and that they are justly distributed. To this end, the Administration appoints observers to supervise distribution, and to assist the local Government. It also appoints other special officers to inform the public about its work, and about the sources of its supplies. It has occasionally been alleged that the principle of equitable distribution has not been observed. Such complaints are always investigated by the Administration acting in co-operation with the Government concerned; hitherto, most of them have proved to be unfounded. The Administration has already received the report to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and an investigation is now going on.

Lieut.-Colonel Hutchison: Does this not emphasise the desirability of having representatives of a free Press, as in countries like our own and the United States, present to be able to substantiate or deny these allegations?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think they can only be substantiated or denied by responsible U.N.R.R.A. officials inquiring into the matter. They have full facilities for making inquiries, and I think the hon. Member may trust the results they obtain.

Earl Winterton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in all the countries where these U.N.R.R.A. supplies are being distributed, U.N.R.R.A. is properly represented, that is to say if its representatives have the fullest right of investigation without interference by the local Government?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I can give that assurance without qualification.

FOREIGN SERVICE (ENTRANCE)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the changed situation in many European countries, he will consider bringing the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Corps into line with the new developments by inviting representative workers to take up diplomatic and Foreign Office posts.

Mr. McNeil: Except for a few temporary appointments entrance to His Majesty's Foreign Service is by open competitive examination according to the regulations made and published by the Civil Service Commissioners.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister of the opinion that it is necessary to bring the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Corps into line with the new political thought that is spreading throughout the world, and that in view of the letter read by Mr. Speaker last week it would be highly desirable to send out a working class Socialist as Ambassador to Peru?

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN

Armaments Manufacture (Inspection)

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the policy of the United Nations that the territory of Japan will be subjected permanently to a system of inspection for the purpose of ensuring that the Japanese can never manufacture weapons of war.

Mr. McNeil: I can add nothing at present to the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.

Allied Control Commission

Major Wilkes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will support the proposal made by the Soviet Government for the setting up of an allied control commission in Japan; and whether


he will give an assurance that only a democratic Japanese Government which gives political freedom to all democratic parties, trades unions and co-operatives will be recognised by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. McNeil: As regards the first part of the Question, my hon. Friend will have seen reports in the Press that a Far Eastern Commission is about to meet in Washington for the purpose of formulating and recommending policies for the control of Japan. I feel sure the House will agree that it is undesirable for His Majesty's Government to make a statement, in advance of the deliberations of that Commission, which might be construed as pre-judging any relevant issue. As regards the second part of the Question, I can only refer to the statement of policy contained in the Potsdam Declaration, to which His Majesty's Government have at present nothing to add.

Major Wilkes: Arising out of that, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House if the Far Eastern Commission that was envisaged, is to be a purely advisory body or not?

Mr. McNeil: It is projected that it should be advisory.

CHINA (BRITISH REPRESENTATION)

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to augment the present insufficient British representation, both official and unofficial, in Shanghai and other important re-occupied Chinese centers; and whether financial arrangements, adequate to ensure the maintenance of British organisations in liberated China, are being made.

Mr. McNeil: A representative of His Majesty's Embassy has been for some lime in Shanghai where His Majesty's Consulate-General has now been reopened. A number of representatives of British firms have also arrived there. Arrangements are now being made for a further party of British business men to proceed to China, and it is hoped to reopen His Majesty's Consulates-General at Tientsin and other liberated cities at an early date. The answer to the second part of the Question is that the matter is under urgent consideration.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 20 business men who are to be permitted to go to China will be insufficient in number to get export trade going between the two countries, and to safeguard British interests in that country?

Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware that there are many complications, but I can assure him that the Government are most anxious about this subject.

Captain Gammans: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that no facilities are being given to American business men which are being denied to British business men?

Mr. McNeil: I have no knowledge of any, but I will look into that point.

ALLIED FORCES (BRITISH WIVES)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how soon he anticipates that British women who have married soldiers from the U.S.A. or elsewhere overseas will be afforded facilities for joining their husbands; and if, in view of the fact that such women cease to draw allowances when their husbands are demobilised, he will expedite their departure.

Mr. McNeil: As explained in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for North Blackpool on 23rd August, the subject of British women married to United States soldiers is continuously occupying the attention of the competent American authorities with whom the responsibility rests and who are fully alive to the hardships involved. According to a statement issued by the American Embassy on 5th October the entire problem is now under study by the American Department of State at the request of the American Ambassador in London. It is understood that the United States officials assigned to this duty have now arrived in Great Britain to investigate.

Mr. Driberg: Could my hon. Friend say, meanwhile, what action is being taken by the American authorities to assist cases such as those referred to in the second part of my Question, where there is some hardship?

Mr. McNeil: As my hon. Friend knows, we have already made representations to the United States Government on this point, but I cannot, at this stage, give him any further information.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Could we have an assurance that no preference will be given to these women until all British prisoners of war have been repatriated, and British wives of Canadian soldiers are sent out to their husbands in Canada?

Mr. McNeil: Without taking sides on this subject at all, I want to say that it is, of course, primarily a matter for the United States Government.

Sir T. Moore: But they are still British subjects.

Lieutenant Skeffington-Lodge: Did not these women take on their husbands for better or for worse when they entered into the matrimonial state, and are there not many more important people and things claiming our attention?

Mr. McNeil: I also hope that they took on the obligation to obey when they did that.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of War Transport if he will take steps to provide transport to enable British women who have married American soldiers who are now demobilised to join their husbands in America.

Mr. Molson: the Minister of War Transport how many British wives of American and Canadian soldiers are desirous of joining their husbands in North America; what priority is granted to these women for passages; and how soon he estimates they will all have rejoined their husbands.

The Minister of War Transport (Mr. Barnes): I understand that at the end of September there were some 32,000 wives of Canadian soldiers awaiting passage, and that this number is increasing at the rate of some 2,000 per month. There are about 42,000 wives of United States soldiers awaiting passage. Wives of Servicemen can be transported in appreciable numbers only at the expense of the movement of Servicemen, which includes ex-prisoners of war, Dominion, Colonial and United Kingdom troops being repatriated from overseas Commands for release, Python

and leave and also the occupation forces. It has been decided that such movements of Servicemen must be undertaken first, and I regret to say, therefore, that it will be some considerable time before the wives of the Canadian Service personnel can be transported from this country to Canada. The American Authorities here accepted responsibility for dealing with the problem of transport for wives of American soldiers, and I understand that a mission is on its way from America to consider ways and means.

Mr. Stokes: Did I understand the Minister to say that Canadian wives are increasing at the rate of 2,000 a month? Can he say how many Canadian troops there are left here?

Mr. Molson: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a great likelihood that a large number of these wives will be deserted if they are not returned to their husbands? Does he not also realise that it would be an appreciable contribution to the housing problem in this country if 85,000 of these women concerned were given facilities for going to America?

Mr. Barnes: I am sure we all desire husbands and wives to be joined together as quickly as possible, but I do feel that this matter must be kept in its proper perspective. The vast majority of the wives of British soldiers have been separated from their husbands for a far longer period. We naturally desire to give all the facilities we can, but we must carry out our own programme and get our own men back to this country.

BERLIN AGREEMENT (PUBLICATION)

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider publishing the text of the Berlin Agreement as a White Paper.

Mr. McNeil: I take it my hon. Friend has in mind the Berlin Agreement establishing the Council of Foreign Ministers. The full text of this agreement was included in the report on the work of the Berlin Conference which was published on 2nd August.

Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some discrepancy between the text of this agreement as


published in the newspapers and the extracts from it as quoted by statesmen, and is it not desirable that hon. Members should have the official text?

Mr. McNeil: I am unaware of any discrepancy between the quotations made by the Press and statements by Ministers of His Majesty's Government, but my right hon. Friend will gladly consider whether, for the convenience of Members of the House, this should be published as a Command Paper.

INTERNEES, MIDDLE EAST (REPATRIATION)

Mr. Tiffany: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Pan-Hellenic Union of Families of Detainees in the Middle East on 9th August requested permission to use caiques of the union at their own expense for repatriating the detainees; and why the offer was not accepted.

Mr. McNeil: This offer was brought to the attention of the British authorities in Cairo in September. It was then decided that owing to the bad weather conditions at this time of year the suggestion was impracticable. If caiques had been used there would almost certainly have been casualties for which the British authorities would have been held responsible. The Commander-in-Chief Mediterranean has, however, lent a number of landing craft for the repatriation of internees and this should provide a much more practical and satisfactory system than the use of caiques.

ARMED FORCES (SOUTH AMERICAN VOLUNTEERS)

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the number of volunteers from South America with dual nationality serving in the Armed Forces of the Crown; and what steps he has taken to secure their release from all obligations to serve in the armed forces of their South American country on their return.

Mr. McNeil: Although the precise total of volunteers is not known, His Majesty's Government have exchanged notes with the Brazilian Government under the terms of which Brazilian citizens, who have effectively served in the Armed Forces of

the United Kingdom, will be entitled in Brazil to certificates of compliance with military service. A similar agreement is under discussion with the Chilean Government. The Argentine Government have issued a decree whereby Argentine citizens who have served, or are serving, in the armed forces of countries which have been at war with the Axis for a period of not less than one year, are given approximately similar exemptions.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: Is it not possible to reach a definite agreement in other South American countries that these men will not be called upon to serve again; and will the hon. Gentleman try to make sure that if they have to serve they will at least go back to almost similar ranks to those which they held in the British Forces—that officers shall not have to start in the ranks again?

Mr. McNeil: I think that is another question of which I should like notice.

JEWS (ADMISSION TO UNITED STATES)

Colonel Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information regarding the quota of Jews from enemy countries permitted by the U.S. Government to emigrate to America.

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir.

Colonel Erroll: Will the Minister consider approaching the United States with regard to obtaining some information on this subject?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can the Minister say whether it is the case that the only country in which people are not allowed to enter just because they are Jews, is the Jewish National Home?

Mr. Lipson: Is it not a fact that immigration into the United States is, quite properly, based on nationality and not on religion?

Mr. McNeil: I think that is a question which should be addressed to the United States.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE

Army Promotions

Major Wilkes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Dionysious Papodongonas,


colonel of the Tripolis Security Battalion throughout the German occupation and the author of a congratulatory telegram to Hitler, dated 28th July, 1944, on the occasion of Hitler's escape from the attempt on his life, was recently posthumously promoted to the rank of major-general in the Greek Army; and whether he will direct the British Military Mission in Greece to inform the Greek authorities that the arming, equipping and training of the three Greek divisions by the Military Mission cannot continue if notorious traitors are promoted and reappointed to high commands.

Mr. McNeil: As soon as this report vas brought to my right hon. Friend's attention, he asked His Majesty's Embassy in Athens to ascertain the facts. The matter was also taken up in the Greek Press. Admiral Voulgaris immediately cancelled the order for promotion, down-graded a number of Security Battalion officers who had been promoted by the Puppet Government during the occupation, and instituted an inquiry to ascertain who had included the name of Colonel Papadongonas in the list for promotion.

Major Wilkes: Is not my hon. Friend aware that this promotion was only cancelled as a result of nation-wide indignation expressed in Greece, and that, in fact, coupled with the promotion of Colonel Papadongonas was that of Colonel Dertilis, the leader of the Security Battalion? Does he not think it symptomatic of the present balance of forces in Greece at the moment that such promotions should be made?

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir. While I have already made it plain that Colonel Papadongonas was immediately demoted, my information does not lead me to any other conclusion than that his name was just one of a list submitted. I have already said that Admiral Voulgaris has attempted to find out how his name came to be included in the list.

Major Guy Lloyd: Is it not possible that the wrong "Papa" has, in fact, been mentioned?

Detentions (Kalamata)

Major Wilkes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that out of the 22 members of the Resistance, who constituted the Liberation

Committee and administered the town of Kalamata after its evacuation by the Germans and the Quisling administration, eight, including George Dallas and Brigadier Costopoulos, have been in gaol, without trial, since 1st March; that the charges against them are charges of shooting Greek members of the Security Battalions captured during the German occupation; and whether, in order to facilitate the holding of the elections, he will make representations for their release.

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend has already been in negotiation on this case, and has now telegraphed for a full report, but meanwhile I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the British authorities in Greece have made frequent representations to secure the release of George Dallas. His case and that of his colleagues have been taken up with the last Government and representations will be continued with the new Greek Government as soon as it is formed.

IRELAND (TRAVEL FACILITIES)

Sir Ronald Ross: asked the Minister of War Transport whether he has any statement to make as to restoring facilities for travel to Northern Ireland to their previous standard.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Minister of War Transport when he will be in a position to announce a better travel service to Northern Ireland and Eire.

The Minister of War Transport (Mr. Barnes): I hope that before Christmas two of the regular vessels, which are at present being reconditioned after release from war service, will be back on the Heysham-Belfast service. This will make a further vessel available for the Holyhead-Kings-town route and will enable sailings on the Liverpool-Belfast service to be increased to six a week in each direction. I also hope that before Christmas the Liverpool-Dublin service will be re-opened with three sailings a week in each direction and that an improved service will be provided between Glasgow and Belfast.

Sir R. Ross: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to when the regular Liverpool-Belfast boats, of which there are two survivors, will again be available?

Mr. Barnes: What I have stated is as far as I can state at the moment.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking into account the improvement of the service between this country and Rosslare?

Mr. Barnes: I am aware that that service must be restarted, but I cannot give any information at the present moment.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the possibility of conferring with the Minister of Civil Aviation with a view to a further air service between the two countries?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Transport Undertakings (Short-Term Permits)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of War Transport whether in view of the large number of short-term permits granted to transport undertakings, which had been terminated and the increasing demand for transport, he is now in a position to announce his policy and at the same time give an assurance that every endeavour will be made to discontinue the withdrawals of these short-term permits.

Mr. Barnes: During the war the normal licensing procedure was suspended and permits were issued instead. These permits are being reviewed as a preliminary to a gradual reversion to licensing procedure. Comparatively few permits have been withdrawn and only in cases where the Regional Transport Commissioners were satisfied that the need for them no longer existed.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many small transport undertakings have been handicapped by the failure to speed up these short-term permits, and will he give us some assurance that this riot of red tape and redundant regulations will come speedily to an end?

Mr. Barnes: The use of the word "many" is an exaggeration. The other points are receiving consideration.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not "many", it is an enormous number? The right hon. Gentleman cannot dispose of me in that way.

Omnibus Services (Rural Areas)

Major Dig by: asked the Minister of War Transport whether he is aware of the serious shortage of motor-omnibuses in rural areas; and what steps he is taking to extend the present inadequate services now that the war is over.

Mr. Collins: the Minister of War Transport when he expects to be in a position to augment the present inadequate motor-omnibus services in rural areas and to provide such services in areas where public transport facilities are lacking.

Mr. Barnes: Considerable improvements in the services in rural areas have already been effected, but I am aware that in many cases they are not yet adequate to meet the reasonable needs of the public. They will be progressively improved as the necessary crews and vehicles can be made available.

Colonel Clarke: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this matter is closely associated with the shortage of agricultural workers, and that his Ministry could make a great contribution to the increase of home-grown food if these facilities were increased?

Mr. Barnes: I am fully aware of the urgent need, from many angles, for improving rural services. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that every effort will be made to accelerate that progress.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some areas Italian and German prisoners of war are still being conveyed to and from their work in coaches? Could they not be taken in Army lorries and the coaches released for civilian purposes?

Mr. Barnes: I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member puts down a question if he desires a reply on that point.

Cycles (Rear Lights)

Colonel Erroll: asked the Minister of War Transport whether he is proposing to permit pedal-cyclists to dispense with rear lights and to revert to the use of rear reflectors.

Mr. Barnes: I have no power to dispense with the obligation to carry red lights imposed on pedal cyclists by the


Road Transport Lighting (Cycles) Act, which was passed by Parliament earlier this year after full debate.

Colonel Erroll: Will the right hon. gentleman consider introducing the Continental practice of adding small reflectors to the pedals of pedal cycles, so that cyclists can be more readily seen in the dark?

Mr. Barnes: If the hon. and gallant Member wants further information on that matter I suggest that he puts down a direct question on it.

Taxi-cabs and Private Hire Vehicles (Operation Radius)

Colonel Erroll: asked the Minister of War Transport whether he will consider removing the present restrictions on the radius of operation of taxi-cabs and private hire vehicles.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): I have been asked to reply. In view of the present petrol position as disclosed in my statement last week, I am unable to withdraw the limitations imposed upon the movement of taxi-cabs and hire cars, since this would mean either that the rations granted to these vehicles would need to be increased or that the normal transport needs of the localities immediately served by these vehicles would not be met.

Colonel Erroll: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this restriction causes very great inconvenience to the public for a remarkably small saving in petrol?

Mr. Shinwell: That may well be, but if I relaxed the present restrictions it would cause more inconvenience to others.

Sir T. Moore: But really, the right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with it like that. What is the estimated amount of petrol saved by the continued imposition of this restriction?

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts the question down I will give him a reply.

Sir T. Moore: The right hon. Gentleman should have known it.

Regulation 73b

Captain Sir Peter Macdonald: asked the Minister of War Transport when it is intended to rescind Regulation 73B, in

so far as it prohibits the carriage of goods on roads in mechanically-propelled vehicles over a distance of more than 60 miles without official approval.

Mr. Barnes: This Regulation must be retained so long as the Road Haulage Organisation continues.

Sir P. Macdonald: For how long are these unnecessary restrictions to be maintained?

Mr. Barnes: At the moment I am not in a position to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman any date.

Mr. De la Bère: How long are we to endure this?

Tyres and Spare Parts

Sir P. Macdonald: asked the Minister of War Transport whether he is aware that many C licence holders are experiencing great difficulty in transport matters at the present time, owing to the shortage of tyres and spare parts, and whether consideration will be given to ensuring that commercial road transport shall receive some priority in this matter, pending the return to normality in this field.

Mr. Barnes: The policy of my Department and of the Ministry of Supply, which is responsible for the distribution of tyres, is to increase the supply of those tyres and spare parts which are still in short supply and to ensure that vehicles engaged on essential work have first call on them.

Sir P. Macdonald: What is the use of granting Class C licences to people unless they have facilities to carry out servicing? Why not give them priority?

Mr. Barnes: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to realise that these are two separate processes, and it would be no service to retailers or others with C licences to withhold the licence on the ground of the difficulty of spare parts.

Sir P. Macdonald: The vehicles have not got spare tyres or spare parts.

Mr. De la Bère: Tie them with red tape.

Vehicles (Replacement)

Sir P. Macdonald: asked the Minister of War Transport whether he is aware that traders and coach owners who have had vehicles requisitioned, and have voluntarily surrendered them to the Services, or have had to dispose of them because


of temporary closing down of their businesses, cannot obtain replacement of them as in the case of those which have been worn out; and whether steps can now be taken to modify the rules applying to replacement of vehicles so as to assist traders in re-establishing their businesses.

Mr. Barnes: Regional Transport Commissioners are prepared to consider applications for licences to acquire new goods vehicles or coaches from applicants who during the war have had their vehicles requisitioned, or had voluntarily surrendered them to the Services, or who had to dispose of them because of the temporary closing down of their businesses. Such applications are dealt with on the same footing, namely, whether it is in the national interest that a licence should be granted having regard to the vehicles available and the applications made for them.

Sir P. Macdonald: In the granting of these licences could not preference be given to the people who surrendered their vehicles in the national interest to purchase them at a fixed price and not have to bid for them in the open market?

Mr. Barnes: They are not obliged to bid for them in the open market.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Missing Goods

Mr. Hogg: asked the Minister of War Transport what are the latest figures regarding thefts of goods consigned by rail; and whether these show an increase or decrease on previous figures.

Mr. Barnes: In the first six months of 1945, £1,311,000 was paid by the four main line railway companies and the Cheshire Lines Committee in respect of 321,000 claims for articles lost or stolen. This compares with £1,197,500 and 343,750 claims in the first six months of 1944 and with £1,207,000 and 322,500 claims in the second six months of 1944. I regret that separate figures for thefts are not available.

Mr. Hogg: Having regard to this very high and disquieting increase, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has in mind any proposed action, and whether he will possibly consider the release of more railway police?

Mr. Barnes: I agree that this is a very serious development, and it is receiving every consideration.

Sleeping Facilities

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of War Transport what priorities are still observed in regard to first and third class sleepers.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of War Transport if now that the war is over, he will cancel immediately the priority for Government officials booking sleeping berths in railways trains.

Mr. Barnes: Since 17th September, about 50 per cent. of all first class and 75 per cent. of all third class sleeping berths on trains have been available for booking by the public through the Railway Companies. The percentage varies on the different routes. The remainder are reserved for allocation to Members of Parliament travelling between London and their constituencies or elsewhere on the business of the House, and to persons travelling on urgent business of national importance where the journey must necessarily be made at night and is sponsored by the Government Department concerned. Only a small proportion of the priority berths is in fact allocated to Government officials, and only senior officials are eligible for them.

Sir T. Moore: Why should there be any such priorities now—that is, barring present company, of course—since they must be at the expense of the ordinary citizen, and surely at this time the ordinary citizen should have some of his rights restored to him?

Mr. Barnes: I would like to remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the facilities afforded to the general travelling public have been considerably increased, and when the matter of priorities is being considered by this House the House must bear in mind its own position with regard to facilities for its own Members travelling to and from their constituencies.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is it not true that the medical profession are now very helpful to the general public in providing medical certificates for persons to travel, and undoubtedly the Minister of War Transport is helping to carry people who are supposed to be sick but who are not?

Mr. Barnes: I am afraid I cannot enter into a question concerning certificates issued by medical specialists.

Sir W. Smithers: Why should there be any priority at all? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that business men engaged on vital and important business necessary to this country cannot keep their business appointments? Why should not Government officials, however small the percentage, be treated like ordinary mortals?

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Gentleman will probably be surprised to know that the majority of the priority reservations issued from this Department is for business personnel.

Sir W. Smithers: Business personnel under Government control.

EXPORTS TO SOUTH AMERICA (FACILITIES)

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Minister of War Transport to what extent improvement has been effected in shipping facilities for British goods to South American ports; and if he can give an assurance that further accommodation for consignments awaiting export will be made available with the least possible delay.

Mr. Barnes: I am able to provide shipping facilities for all the manufactured goods now available for shipment to South America. At the end of September only small quantities of manufactured goods were registered with the shipping lines as awaiting shipment. Shipping is being arranged to lift these items together with any others as they come forward. At the moment there are orders outstanding for large quantities of cement for Brazil, and shipment is being effected as quickly as labour and other facilities can be provided to bag the cement for export.
I should like to take this opportunity of saying that the position in regard to South America is typical of the export trade generally, and I have every reason to believe that I shall be able to provide sufficient shipping to cover any manufactured goods becoming available for export.

Sir P. Hannon: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, but at the same time ask him if he realises the importance of providing shipping with the

least possible inconvenience to the shippers, in view of the importance of establishing and restoring our foreign trade?

Mr. Barnes: I thought my reply already covered that point.

EX-PRISONERS OF WAR (CHRISTMAS LEAVE)

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: asked the Prime Minister whether he will instruct the Service Departments that all returned prisoners of war, from whatever theatre, shall be granted Christmas leave this year at home.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Prisoners of war liberated from the Japanese will normally be on repatriation or release leave at Christmas time this year, unless they are on Regular engagements or have elected to serve on. Personnel released from other theatres have been granted, if in the Navy, 14 days plus seven days for each six months in captivity, or, if in the Army or R.A.F., a minimum of 42 days' repatriation leave. On return to units after this leave, the men take their place on the normal leave roster. It would be inequitable to give them the further preference suggested; there may be many others who have been unable to have Christmas leave in past years, including some with long overseas service. While it is not the intention to impose special travel restrictions on Service personnel at Christmas, the numbers who can proceed on leave at any one time are necessarily limited and it is ununkely that more than about 10 per cent. of the Forces at home can be at home on Christmas Day.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: Are we to understand that it is going to be possible this Christmas for Service personnel to travel? Normally, they are not supposed to.

Mr. Attlee: I cannot say more on this matter than I have said about the possibility of there being 10 per cent.

Mr. Keeling: Do 14 days, plus seven days, mean 21 days, or do they mean something quite different?

Mr. Attlee: My addition would make it 21 days.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it a fact, as stated in some newspapers to-day, that some


serving men, including prisoners of war, who are on their way home, might not be home at Christmas because of the trouble at the docks?

Mr. Attlee: That is an entirely different question.

MEMBERS' LETTERS (DEPARTMENTAL REPLIES)

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Prime Minister if he will give a general directive to all chiefs of Departments to speed up answers to letters from Members of Parliament.

The Prime Minister: I do not think any general directive is necessary. I am sure that all my colleagues will continue to impress on their Departments the need for answering letters from Members as speedily as the size of their staff and the volume of their correspondence permit.

Mr. McKie: Is it not a fact that in the old days, when there was a smaller volume of correspondence than there is now, answers to letters were very much delayed and that now, with the much increased volume, the delay is even greater? Will the right hon. Gentleman not bear this question in mind?

Mr. Attlee: I shall be pleased to bear it in mind, but I gather that my hon. Friend was referring to some Government of the past.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman discourage some of his colleagues from instituting rubber stamp signatures?

Mr. Stokes: Is the Prime Minister aware that, although my correspondence has increased enormously, the replies from Ministers have improved enormously?

AIR TRANSPORT AUXILIARY PILOTS (RECOGNITION)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Prime Minister if he will state the number of decorations awarded to pilots of the Air Transport Auxiliary; and whether he is satisfied that the outstanding services of many of these pilots, who have frequently delivered aircraft to the battle areas, have been suitably recognised.

The Prime Minister: Twenty-two Honours and 12 King's Commendations

for brave conduct, or for service in the air, have been awarded to air crew of Air Transport Auxiliary during the war. I do not consider that the scale of awards has been inadequate.

ROYAL AIR FORCE VICTORIES (COMMEMORATION)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Prime Minister if he will establish 15th September as a Thanksgiving Day to Fighter Command and the R.A.F. in perpetuity, in memory or those who gave their lives and others who saved this country in the Battle of Britain in 1940.

The Prime Minister: The question of appointing a day which would serve to celebrate the victory referred to, and other victories, will be considered together with the question of fixing a National Day of Remembrance.

POLISH CIVILIANS, GREAT BRITAIN (BRITISH NATIONALITY)

Lieut.-Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Prime Minister whether, when he is examining the question of implementing the pledge given by the late Government to members of the Polish forces as to assuming British nationality, he will consider making available such facilities and privileges as are agreed upon also to Polish civilians in this country who were in their then Government's employment.

The Prime Minister: The statement made by my predecessor on 27th February last referred to members of the Polish Armed Forces who had fought during the war under British command, but I understand that the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member is that the principle under-lying this statement should be recognised as applying to the particular class of civilians to which he refers, as distinct from Polish civilians in general. All I can say at this stage is that the point to which he calls attention will be kept in mind.

EDUCATIONAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING SCHEMES

Mr. Austin: asked the Prime Minister, in view of complaints that E.V.T. and its equivalents are not functioning satisfactorily and of the importance of such


training in the Forces, if he will institute an examination of the deficiencies with a view to their correction.

The Prime Minister: The position as regards the E.V.T. scheme for the Air Force was announced by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air on Wednesday last. The Army and Navy schemes, although still in an early stage, have already shown substantial progress and are rapidly gaining momentum. There is no evidence to suggest that they are not functioning satisfactorily where military circumstances allow of their implementation. There are difficulties, due to man-power and the world shortage of books and materials, but as far as possible these are being effectively overcome.

WAR GRATUITIES

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Prime Minister if he will authorise payment now of war gratuities to officers and men of the Services who have been invalided out, as their payment will greatly facilitate such persons to rehabilitate themselves in civilian life.

The Prime Minister: This has already been done. Full instructions were issued in the Press on 1st September stating how applications should be made by ex-Servicemen and women. Payment will follow as quickly as the applications can be dealt with, but the process of payment will necessarily take some time. Applications are not necessary in the case of personnel discharged since VE Day.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Farm Buildings (Report)

Mr. York: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Report on Farm Buildings is ready for publication; and what is his intention in regard to the Report.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): It is expected that printed copies of the Report will be available in a few weeks' time. I would prefer to defer any statement as to my intentions regarding the report until it has been published.

Mr. York: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this report is now being printed?

Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir.

Sir William Darling: Is the Minister aware that paper has been made available for a most interesting report published in the "Soviet News" about the construction of farm buildings in Russia? Is there any reason why paper should not be made available in connection with the construction of farm buildings in this country?

Mr. Williams: I understand that paper has not only been made available but that the report is being printed in Edinburgh.

Smallholdings

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has now received the report requested by his Ministry from the Smallholdings Committee of the Cornwall county council; their replies to the four major questions giving an estimate of present-day costs and expenditure in providing a 50-acre small holding; and what is his policy in regard to the advisability of terminating the tenancy of either those who had the means of taking larger holdings, or those who were making no progress.

Mr. T. Williams: I have received from the County Councils' Association an analysis of the replies by county councils to certain questions asked by my predecessor. This information was requested for guidance in framing future smallholdings policy, and I do not think it would be desirable to disclose details of the answers provided by individual councils. No decisions have yet been reached on long-term land settlement policy which is at present under careful consideration.

Dispossessed Farmers (Appeal Tribunal)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minisister of Agriculture whether he is now prepared to set up a court of appeal to which farmers dispossessed by the order of war agricultural executive committees can state their case.

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. I am proposing to set up seven or eight regional tribunals in England and Wales for this purpose. Details of these proposals are being discussed with the various organisations concerned, and I shall make a further and fuller statement to the House on the subject as soon as possible.

Mr. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware with what very great pleasure—and what surprise—his reply will be


read in the country, because it is a reversal of the policy of the old Government on at least one point?

Mr. Williams: That is exactly why it was done.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will cases of eviction which occurred in the past be re-opened?

Mr. Williams: No, Sir.

Women's Land Army

Major John White: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the great decrease in the number of A.T.S. personnel employed on gun-sites and other operational duties, he will arrange, with the other Departments concerned, for suitable clothing from Army stocks, especially oilskins, rubber-boots and greatcoats, to be issued at public expense to members of the W.L.A. to meet a deficiency of winter clothing.

Mr. T. Williams: An oilskin and a greatcoat are part of the standard uniform issue for members of the Women's Land Army, and ample supplies are already available. Rubber boots are issued to all members who are engaged on particularly wet farm and market garden operations. This year the Land Army has been successful in obtaining supplies of surplus A.R.P. rubber boots of heavy agricultural type, in numbers sufficient to cover all winter requirements.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture what changes of policy he has decided on in regard to the treatment of the W.L.A. in respect of release, gratuities and conditions of service generally.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Agriculture what concessions he proposes to make to maintain an adequate number of recruits for the W.L.A. and to compensate for the refusal to grant gratuities to its members.

Mr. Stubbs: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has reconsidered awarding a gratuity to members of the W.L.A., seeing that the refusal to furnish a gratuity to these workers has resulted in many leaving their employment to the disadvantage of the farmers.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the plans for the demobilisation of members of the W.L.A. who were enlisted for three years or the duration of the war, and who have now

served three years and desire to be released.

Squadron Leader Emrys Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state the conditions on which members of the W.L.A. may be granted release.

Mr. T. Williams: I hope to be able to make a statement about the release of members of the W.L.A. in the very near future. As regards gratuities, I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) on 23rd August. As most of the members of the W.L.A. are in the employment of private farmers, it would not be practicable to interfere with the wages orders made by the Agricultural Wages Board which apply to all women workers on the land. I am afraid the clothing situation would not allow us to add to the outfit of the W.L.A. at the present time. It has, however, been agreed that members of the W.L.A. shall in future be entitled to four free travel warrants a year instead of two.

Sir T. Moore: While not thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, which is completely inadequate to meet the demands put forward by the Women's Land Army in their charter, may I ask him, since he occupies the supremely important position of Minister, whether it is not time that adequate justice was done to these splendid young women who have been treated as the Cinderellas of the women's forces?

Mr. Williams: The hon. and gallant Member will be aware that I am repeating the action in regard to these gallant women that was performed by my predecessor.

Mr. Stubbs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great number of members of the Women's Land Army have left the land because of their disgust at the way they have been treated by the Minister?

Mr. Williams: I think that the numbers of women who have left the Women's Land Army on account of gratuities can be exaggerated. We all expected that at the end of hostilities there would be a decline in the numbers of the Women's Land Army, since they were recruited only for the duration of the war.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his decision will cause great disappointment to large numbers of the Women's Land Army, who un-


doubtedly voted for his party in the belief that it was going to reverse the policy?

Mr. Williams: I would not be surprised if there was annoyance on the part of the Women's Land Army at the decision already taken by myself, which is slightly better than that taken by the previous Government.

Mr. Turton: With regard to Question 81, will the Minister realise that this is a particular case where delay is causing grave dislocation in agriculture, for these women were engaged for three years, their time is up, and they want to be discharged, not with ignominy but with gratitude?

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend can be assured that a statement will be made very shortly regarding the release of the members of the Women's Land Army.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer is thoroughly unsatisfactory?

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY

Rehabilitation Grants

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture the basis for the grants to be allocated to fishermen returning to their industry from service in the Forces in order to rehabilitate them in their craft.

Mr. T. Williams: Under the provisions of the Herring Industry Acts, 1935–1944, grants and loans may be made to persons engaged in or desiring to engage in the herring industry towards the cost of providing boats and equipment. No such grant may exceed one-third of the total cost, but a loan may be given in addition. Under this scheme ex-Servicemen are entitled to special consideration. Proposals for assistance on similar lines to other inshore fishermen are made in the Inshore Fishing Industry Bill which is now before the House. Provision is also made in both cases for suitable assistance towards the improvement or reconditioning of boats and equipment.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Do these grants apply to the repair of craft and equipment?

Mr. Williams: To reconditioning.

Poaching (Rye Bay)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that French fishermen are continually poach-

ing on British fishing grounds in Rye Bay by night; and why the police boats are not preventing it.

Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Member is no doubt aware that a naval patrol has now been instituted in this area and has already dealt with several offenders. I hope that these measures will prove effective. I am glad to say that the French authorities are co-operating in trying to stop these practices.

Mr. Smith: Why was action only taken 10 days after I put down this Question, if the trouble had been going on for months?

Mr. Stokes: Why did not the hon. Member put it down 30 days earlier?

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that English trawlers have been poaching unhampered for several years past in the Hebridian and Scottish waters; and will he take some action to deal with offenders at home before he goes abroad?

INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION (TRIPARTITE WORKING PARTIES)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Gaitskell:

To ask: the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in his discussions with industries in establishing working parties to inquire into questions of industrial efficiency.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): As Question 143 raises a matter of importance, I would like, with the permission of the House, to give an explanation of the Government's policy of inquiring into the efficiency of our industries by the method of tripartite working parties, and some account of the progress that has been made with the cotton, pottery, hosiery, furniture and boot and shoe industries. I have explained to these industries that, while for a year or two they and other British industries will have no difficulty in selling abroad all they can produce, the special advantage of a seller's market in a period of world shortage will end and a time will come when it will be difficult to find and keep all the markets that we need. We cannot wait until these difficulties are upon us; we must forestall them if we are to be able to cope with them when they arrive. We cannot, therefore, neglect any steps which, on the one


hand, will make our industries more competitive in the markets of the world, and, on the other, will provide us at home with the best goods at the cheapest price consistent with good conditions for those in the industry.
The Government must in one way or another get the best advice it can on what these steps should be. Three conditions are essential: firstly, advice must come from industry itself because that is where all the past experience resides; secondly, employers and workers should be equally represented because both sides not only have a contribution to make but also will have to carry out any plans that may be decided upon; and thirdly, the public and Parliament must be satisfied—whatever the recommendations may be—that they are truly in the national interest and that the two sides of industry have not "ganged up" against the consumer for their own advantage. The Government have decided that these three conditions can best be fulfilled by establishing tripartite working parties composed in equal thirds of representatives of employers and workers and of independent members, and consisting of persons who will be accepted nationally as an authoritative body.
I am happy to inform the House that I have received the most cordial co-operation from both sides of industry and that the task of setting up working parties for the five industries I have mentioned is now practically completed. I will not go into detail on the composition of these working parties which will be found in the statement that is being circulated in the Official Report, but two points I would like to mention. The first is that we have been fortunate in securing as Chairmen of the working parties, Sir George Schuster, Sir Archibald Forbes, Miss Caroline Haslett, Mr. T. P. Bennett and Mr. Andrew Dalgleish. Secondly, there has been a remarkable response from the score or so of engineers, scientists, economists and other persons of standing, who, like the chairmen, have without hesitation agreed to help, as independent members, with all the consequent disturbance of their busy lives.
The terms of reference of all these working parties are in common form as follows:
To examine and inquire into the various schemes and suggestions put forward for improvements of organisation, production and distribution methods and processes in the industry, and to report as to the steps which

should be taken in the national interest to strengthen the industry and render it more stable and more capable of meeting competition in the home and foreign markets.
These terms of reference are wide enough to cover any question of industrial efficiency, but I have made it clear to the chairmen that matters concerning the relations between employers and employees, which are dealt with by employers' federations and trade unions, should be considered outside the scope of their inquiries. The point is not mentioned in the terms of reference, but I have told each chairman that he, himself, and the independent members should have particular regard to the broad national interest involved and to the interest of the consumers. The chairman, with the consent of his working party, will be at liberty to set up any subgroups that he considers necessary for examining particular aspects of the problem and to co-opt on to them any persons he considers advisable. I have also said that interim reports should be made upon matters of special urgency and, while undue hurry must not be allowed to spoil the value of the reports, they should be presented as soon as possible. I would nope to get the final reports early in the New Year. These will be published. The House will appreciate that this is only a beginning and that there will be more of such inquiries.

Mr. Eden: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the statement he has just made is of far-reaching importance. As I understand it, there are other documents which will be available to us in the Official Report to-morrow, and in those circumstances I would not wish to ask any supplementary questions on the subject now. I think the Leader of the House will agree that when we have had chance to study these documents, we may ask for an early opportunity of further discussion.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): This can be considered through the usual channels. The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to give any undertaking at this stage.

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Leader of the House whether these arrangements "through the usual channels" will still be confined to the "Big Three" or whether the smaller nations will get consideration?

Following is the statement:

LIST OF CHAIRMEN AND MEMBERS OF WORKING PARTIES FOR INDUSTRY.


Representatives of:


Industry.
Chairmen and Secretaries.
Employers.
Trade Unions.
Independent Members.


Cotton
…
Sir George Schuster, K.C.S.I., K.C.M.G., C.B.E., M.C.(Secretary: Mr. G. J. MacMahon Asst. Secretary: Mr. S. Wilks, c/o Cotton Board, Midland Bank Buildings, Manchester).
Mr. C. B. Clegg (Weaving).
Mr. T. Griffen (Finishing).
Sir Roy Dobson, C.B.E., F.R.Ae.S., (Engineer).


Mr. R. C. Reynolds, O.B.E. (Finishing).
Mr. A. Knowles, J.P. (Spinning).
Professor E. L. Hirst, M.A., Ph.D., D.Sc., F.R.I.C, F.R.S. (Scientist)


Mr. A. V. Symons (Merchanting).
Mr. A. Naesmith, O.B.E., J.P. (Weaving).
Professor J. Jewkes, C.B.E., M.Com. (Economist).


Mr. W. M. Wiggins, J.P. (Spinning).
Mr. A. Roberts, J.P. (Spinning).
Mss A. G. Shaw, M.A., M.I.P.E. (Factory Organisation).


Pottery
…
Sir Archibald Forbes. (Secretary: Mr. A. E. Percival, Board of Trade, Neville House, Page Street,
S.W.I.*)
Mr. E. H. Bailey.
Mr. T. Ford.
Dr. H. W. Webb, O.B.E., D.Sc., F.I.C., M.I.Chem.E. (Scientist).Vice-Chairman of Working Party.


Mr. A. E. Hewitt.
Mr. H. Hewitt.


Mr. Ashley Myott.
Mr. A. Hollins.
Mr. H. Trethowan, N.R.D. (Design).


Mr. F. Shepard Johnson.
Mr. E. Jones, J.P.
Mr. C. Wansbrough, C.I.E.E. (Engineer).







Mr. F.G. Yorath, L.R.IB.A., F.V.I(Industrial Architect)


Furniture
…
Mr. A. Dalgleish. (Secretary: Miss M. E. Strudwick, Board of Trade, Neville House, Page Street, S.W.I).
Mr. MacA. Bexon.
Mr. J. R. Shanley.
Dr. F. Y. Henderson, D.Sc. (Scientist).


Mr. Herman Lebus, C.B.E., J.P.
Mr. R. S. Shube.
Mr. H. Tout, M.A. (Economist).


Mr. W. Welsford.
Mr. A. G. Tomkins.
Mr. J. C. Pritchard (Design and Research).


Hosiery
…
Miss Caroline Haslett, C.B.E., C.I.E.E., M.R.I. (Secretary: Mr. J. Wright, Board of Trade, Millbank, S.W.I.*)
Mr. P. Bussens.
Members to be appointed.
Mr. R. E. Yeabsley, C.B.E., F.C.A. (Accountant).


Mr. T. W. Kempton
Mr. L. Foyster (Distribution).


Mr. S. F. Peshall, M.C, M.A.
Professor A. Radford, B.Sc. (Econ.) (Economist).


Further member to be appointed
Mr. W. C. Puckey, F.I.I.A., M.I.P.E. (Engineer).


Boots and Shoes
Mr. T. P. Bennett, C.B.E., F.R.I.B.A. (Secretary: Mr. F. I. Lamb, Board of Trade, Horseferry House, S.W.I.*)
Mr. J. H. Bott.
Members to be appointed.
Mrs. J. Robinson, M.A. (Economist).


Mr. Bancroft Clark.
Dr. H. L. Guy, C.B.E., D.sc., M.I.Mech.E., M.I.C.E., F.Am. S.M., F.R.S. (Scientist).


Mr. G. R. Colvin, M.B.E.
Mr. K. Holmes, A.R.C.A. (Design).


Mr. G. H. Denton.
Major F. J. Stratton (B/Trade Controller of Footwear).


Further member to be appointed.
Mr. J. J. Gracie, F.I.I.A., M.I.I.E.E.(Engineer)


* Temporary address; Offices, to be set up in the provinces, will be announced later.

DOCK STRIKES (FOOD SUPPLIES)

Mr. Eden (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Labour and National Service whether he will give the House the latest information about the situation at the docks, and whether he will give an assurance that all possible steps are being taken to ensure that necessary foodstuffs are unloaded.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Yes, Sir. Work on the Tees was resumed this morning and a small number of Port of London permanent men who had become involved have also returned to work. On the other hand the coal porters at Tilbury have ceased work, as well as the dockers in the Surrey Dock area and the tally clerks at the Royal Docks. Elsewhere there is no material change to report. It is estimated that the total number of men on strike is 39,208, made up as follows: 10,031 in London, 3,850 in Hull, 1,016 in Tyne and Wear, 996 at Leith, 275 at the Hartlepools, 940 at Grimsby and Immingham, 18,100 at Liverpool and Birkcnhead, and 4,000 in Glasgow. As has been reported in the Press, the National Docks Group Committee of the Transport and General Workers' Union have held a meeting to discuss the present stoppage. This fully representative body unanimously stated that there is no justification for prolonging the present stoppage by one single day, and urged the men to resume work at once. I trust that the men will pay full heed to the advice of their democratically elected committee and will go back to work at once. As regards the second part of the Question, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are taking all possible measures to prevent any hold up of necessary food supplies.

Mr. Lipson: How many members of the military forces are engaged in landing supplies, and is it proposed to increase the number to make sure that all that ought to be brought in is brought in?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot, without notice, give the number at present engaged, but I can assure the hon. Member that others are being brought in and that that process will continue to ensure necessary deliveries.

Captain Gammans: Is this stoppage likely to have much effect on the repatriation of men from the Far East and Middle East?

Mr. Isaacs: Without examining the consequences of the slow turn-round of ships it would be difficult to say anything about that at the moment. I would ask that whatever we may say at the moment may be guided by the hope of inducing the men to return to work and not to prolong the stoppage.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that the dockers have real grievances, would it not be desirable for the Minister to call a conference of employers, trade union officials and representatives of the dock areas, with a view to accelerating negotiations and getting the strike ended?

Mr. Isaacs: In view of the great number of applications which are reaching mo from unofficial bodies, I think it would be most unwise to let anything accrue to those who take unofficial action in this matter.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say what proportion of the men on strike are members of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and can he explain to the House why members of that union are not content to be represented by their officials?

Mr. Isaacs: That is entirely a matter of opinion on which I am not qualified to speak. In regard to the first part of the question, I think most of them are members of that union, but there are a few members of another union.

Mr. W. J. Brown: While agreeing with what the right hon. Gentleman has said may I ask him whether he is satisfied that the machinery of the Transport and General Workers Union, a union which again and again has been involved in disputes—

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise out of the original Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House.)—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session dealing with supplies and services and with the control of prices and charges, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of the said Act, and any increase attributable to the passing of the said Act in any sums authorised or required by any other enactment to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament; and
(b) to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any sums which, in consequence of the passing of the said Act, are recovered under Section two of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(Power to extend purposes of certain Defence Regulations.)

3.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, leave out "at fair prices."
This and the two following Amendments are drafting Amendments, the object of which is to make clear, what was in fact the original intention when the Bill was first introduced last May, that the three objectives set out in the paragraph, namely, to secure a sufficiency of essential supplies and services, to secure them at fair prices, and to distribute them equitably, are distinct. A particular Defence Regulation may be concerned with one of these matters, for example, the production of essential goods, but not with their production at fair prices, nor


with their equitable distribution. This Amendment was foreshadowed by the Home Secretary in his speech on the Second Reading.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Without seeking, at the moment, to dissent in any way from the object of this Amendment, I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman to look again at the draft, because it does seem to me that if the subsection is drafted as now proposed, it will be ambiguous in a very unfortunate way. It will now read, if this Amendment is passed:
To secure a sufficiency of those essential to the wellbeing of the community or their equitable distribution or their availability at fair prices.
As a lawyer, it seems to me that the words "at fair prices" will then only qualify the last of the three alternatives, "availability," and that we are being asked to leave out of the Clause the safeguard that fair prices shall qualify the first two alternatives.
Under the original draft, as framed by the Coalition Government, it was intended that fair prices should qualify the whole of this sub-section, and I can hardly believe that it is really the intention of the Government to open the door to securing any of these things at prices which are not fair. I cannot believe that that is the intention and, therefore, I think it ought to be made clear in the draft that "at fair prices" should qualify all three of the alternatives. Could we have an assurance that the drafting will be looked at again, before the Report stage, to avoid that implication?

Mr. Oliver: I have had a look at the Clause while my hon. and learned Friend has been speaking, and I do not attach the same significance to the words which he does, because I do not think they are applicable in the sense in which he applies them. To make sure, however, we will look at the matter and see if any alteration is necessary and, should there be any substance in what he says, we will correct the matter. The purpose of the Amendment was to make the three items divisible. As the Section was originally drawn, the items were not divisible, and had to go together.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line n, after "distribution," insert:

"or their availability at fair prices."—[Mr. Oliver.]

Mr. Oliver: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at end, to insert:
(b) to facilitate the demobilisation and resettlement of persons and to secure the orderly disposal of surplus material; or.
Since the Bill was first introduced by the Coalition Government, the Japanese war has come to a sudden end, and, as indicated in the Second Reading Debate on the Bill, the Government propose that the Emergency Powers Defence Act should expire in February next. When the present Bill was framed, it was expected that the immediate post-war problems of demobilisation, reinstatement, and the disposal of Government surplus would be largely dealt with before the expiry of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts. It is now necessary to bring these matters within the scope of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: While appreciating the object for which the Amendment is put down, I would like to ask whether we can have some more elucidation on this matter. As far as I am aware, there are not in existence at the present moment any Defence Regulations made with the object of facilitating the demobilisation and resettlement of persons, or with securing the orderly disposal of surplus Government material; and I should like to ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary if he can give any information as to the kind of Regulations which it is intended to continue under Clause 1 of this Bill for these particular purposes. Is it, for instance, intended to carry on with the power of direction of labour? What is intended with regard to the resettlement of persons? Is it intended to adapt any particular Defence Regulation for the purpose of implementing the White Paper with regard to the disposal of surplus material?

Mr. Oliver: On the point raised by my hon. Friend, it would be impossible at this stage to indicate the precise Regulations which the Government have in mind, because the Government would be entitled to employ for the particular purposes specified in the Amendment any Regulation which fell within the interpretation of this Section. What those would be, of course, it would be very difficult


to say, because they are much too extensive and, therefore, it would be misleading if I were to make the slightest attempt at indication before I have had the opportunity of previously considering the matter.

Mr. Manningham- Buller: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is really asking this Committee to give the Government power to carry on existing Defence Regulations without the Government having the least idea what kind of Regulations they want? May I ask him to deal with my specific point: Is it intended to carry on for this purpose with the Regulations? I think we ought to be told that, before we give the Government a blank cheque to carry on existing Regulations for this particular purpose.

Mr. Oliver: This will not be the last opportunity the Committee will have for discussing specific Regulations, and I cannot, at this stage, discuss specific Regulations because it would be necessary to give them consideration, and it would be impossible to answer categorically the question raised by the hon. Member.

Lieutenant-Commander Joynson-Hicks: This seems to have raised a point of exceptional importance. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is being invited to specify any specific Regulation which he is proposing. He has been asked, in general terms, what powers the Government are seeking, and how they are proposing to use them. This is a matter of the greatest importance to all people returning from the Forces, and there is nothing which perturbs a man in the Forces so much as the doubt of his avail ability to take up his civilian employment. As I see it, under the powers which they are now proposing, the Government will be able to make a Regulation to alter the whole policy concerning labour which ex-Service men have been under the impression that they would be subjected to. I think we should press the Government for some better explanation about the use of such powers.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: I should like to point out to my hon. Friend that he is asking the Committee to introduce something which will qualify any Defence Regulation. I would ask him whether that refers to present, or future, Regulations. Surely

it would not be too difficult for the Government, with all the powers at their disposal, to inform the Committee, either to-day, or on the Report stage, what actual Defence Regulation, or Regulations, they have in mind. As has been pointed out, the words which were intended to be added to-day undoubtedly refer mainly to those men and women who are now, or have been, in the Forces. We have already experienced a certain amount of trouble over demobilisation, and I think that before the Committee considers this Amendment it should be informed to which Regulation or Regulations it refers.

Mr. Marlowe: I was rather startled when the hon. Gentleman said, in reply to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham Buller), that he could not give particulars about this without further consideration. I am bound to say it is a most startling thing that a Minister should come down to answer a question of this kind and admit that he has not considered it. I think we are entitled to know which Regulations are referred to in the Section, and there would not be the slightest difficulty in specifying them in a Schedule if there were a genuine attempt to show the country which Regulations are involved. This method of wording leaves it open to the Government to make their own interpretation of any Regulation, whether it comes within the Section or not. I suggest to the Under-Secretary that the proper procedure is to set out in a Schedule precisely what Regulations are concerned.

Mr. Oliver: I have now had an opportunity of considering the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend, and I would say that the Regulations contemplated are those which will govern the control of premises for storage purposes, for training centres, for the storage of goods and uniforms, or for men who are to be demobilised—in effect, the premises which will be required for the purposes of demobilising soldiers, airmen and members of the Navy when they are released. That is the class of Regulation we have in mind.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Might I ask my hon. Friend, if that really is the purpose of this Amendment, to consider, between now and the Report stage, words more appropriate for carrying out that purpose? He says now that this power is


only limited to the securing of property for the purpose of storage and demobilisation.

Mr. Oliver: That was purely an illustration.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If I understand that this is only an illustration, would the hon. Gentleman give some further indication if more is intended than dealing with property?

3.45 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is treating the Committee very fairly. My hon. and learned Friend asked him some specific questions, and he has only given one illustration of one part of one of his questions. What is asked for here is a very considerable extension for the purposes of the Bill, and any one reading it would presume that facilitating demobilisation would involve a good deal more than merely taking over premises for the storage of clothing, which is the illustration given. Those words are capable of a very much wider interpretation than that. The hon. Gentleman has not told us anything about what is envisaged there. What about the orderly disposal of surplus materials? Do the Government intend to adhere to the general policy of the White Paper concerning the disposal of surplus materials? If the hon. Gentleman is not in a position to tell us, perhaps the Minister of Supply, who is present, will do so. This is a very important Bill, and I must say that the hon. Gentleman has not expounded the proposals he is putting before us. What my hon. Friend asked more generally was whether the whole question of the direction of labour was or was not to come under Sub-section (1, b). We have heard nothing about that.
We know that some of these powers are necessary, as was admitted from this side during the Second Reading Debate. The Coalition Government produced a Bill which envisaged the necessity of certain controls during the transitional period, but I think it is necessary, on such an important Measure as this and a Measure which has a greatly increased length of efficacy, that Ministers should tell us what is in their minds. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think us discourteous in pressing him to go a little further and deal with the other points about resettle-

ment and the disposal of surplus materials. Of course, we do not expect him to specify every Regulation. I dare say they have not been drafted, and perhaps they never will be; but up to now we have had no inkling of the sort of thing the Government want to deal with. I think that either the Under-Secretary, the Home Secretary, or the Minister of Supply should enlighten us further.

Sir William Darling: I want to press the Minister strongly on this matter and to ask the Committee to consider how those who are serving in the Army will look at the matter. It is significant that this Amendment for the first time mentions "persons." Hitherto on this Bill we have been discussing materials. This Amendment is to facilitate the demobilisation and resettlement of persons. A person serving in the Eighth Army, and looking at the matter from the point of view of his coming back to civil life, will wonder what the Government mean when they talk about facilitating the demobilisation and settlement of persons. The simple soldier, having served for six years in the Army, wants to know what kind of treatment he is to get. This Amendment is alarming and significant, and will not allay anxieties about demobilisation in the minds of many hon. Members and many of those who are still serving. The phrase "resettlement of persons" is a significant one; the word "settlement" seems to indicate some finality, such as an interment. There is a sentence of doom in it which I am certain the Government do not want to impart, but if I were reading it round the camp fire, it would create that kind of impression in my mind. This phrase raises a great many anxieties. For example, would the Government desire under this power to deal with strikes, with working parties that will not work? I hope the Minister will answer these somewhat simple observations We are dealing with an intelligent electorate, and people want to know what is behind the devices and designs of the Government.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: It does not seem to me to be very important whether the Minister gives a definition or not, because if this Amendment is passed in its present form there can be no question that all Regulations affecting the direction of labour will be in order. I ask hon. Members opposite


to realise what the Government are doing in this Amendment. Hon. Members should know what they are doing. The Amendment means that it will be possible to direct men where the State wants them to go and to direct them into the sorts of work they are to be permitted to do for a period of five years, and perhaps longer. I regard the Amendment as a very serious one. It does seem to me that the Minister has let the cat out of the bag. If this Amendment is passed there will be direction of labour for a period of five years, and perhaps longer.

Mr. Gallacher: I advise the Minister not to make the least concession of any kind to hon. Members opposite. If he makes one concession, they will dive at him for another. I only want to say a word or two about the direction of labour. It is a bogy that is continually raised, and those who raise it forget that when we had a Tory Government in this country there were millions of men lining up day after day at the employment exchanges begging to be directed to a job. After the last war, what happened to the lads when they came out of the Army? They were left to wander around the streets begging and playing instruments. Any of the lads who came out after the last war would have been delighted if there had been a Government with powers, and prepared to use them, to direct men into a job. The important thing is to see that the Government have power to get the lads employed when they come out of the Army. If they do that, they will be doing a good job.

Mr. McKie: I think the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), as self-appointed adviser to the Government in this matter, may prove rather an embarrassment to them. As well as appearing in that role, the hon. Member said that the question of the direction of labour is a mere bogy. I do not think that very many of those who voted for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree with him, judging from the letters which I receive and similar letters which, I understand, reach hon. Members opposite. The writers of those letters regard this as a very real and live point. The Essential Work Order, which is also covered by the Bill, is another very distasteful matter not only

to employers but to employees. I do not think the hon. Member for West Fife can gainsay that. The question of the direction of labour is a very important point. The Amendment also deals in general terms with demobilisation. Can the hon. Member for West Fife or any other hon. Member opposite say that the demobilisation scheme, which admittedly was brought in by the Coalition Government, is giving general satisfaction to the men and women concerned? In his speech over the wireless, the Minister of Labour—

The Chairman (Major Milner): That question does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. McKie: I will not pursue it further, then. I was emphasising that with regard to the direction of labour, the Essential Work Order and demobilisation there is very real dissatisfaction among the men and women in the Services. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) put a question to the Minister of Supply which also raiseda very important point. It boils down to this, that we are asked to make not merely a change in the whole structure of the Bill, but to give the Government very far-reaching additional powers to those already in the Bill. We on this side object to control for control's sake. We regard controls as a wartime necessity to be retained in peacetime only for so long as they are absolutely necessary, but not to be retained simply out of pure love of control. Hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite like controls. [Interruption.] The fact that my words are not meeting with approval shows that they are stinging. If I may say so without disrespect, the Under-Secretary rather slurred over this Amendment, rather indicating that it was merely a drafting Amendment, and in doing so I do not think he treated the Committee with the respect to which it is entitled. In any case, it did not escape the vigilance of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). I eagerly await a reply from one or other of the three Ministers immediately concerned with the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: If I rose in my place almost before the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) had concluded his oration, my anxiety to be


on my feet was due to the desire I had of congratulating him on his successful return to Parliament as an Independent Member.

Mr. McKie: I think the hon. Member misunderstands the position. If I may go into certain internal family troubles, some of those in the constituency which I represent in the House as a Conservative unfortunately ran against me.

Mr. Maxton: I understood that the hon. Member was formerly a Conservative and that he is now in the House as an Independent Member.

Mr. McKie: Mr. McKie rose—

The Chairman: I am sorry but the capacity in which the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) sits here is quite irrelevant.

Mr. McKie: On a point of Order. Having been challenged by the hon. Member, am I not entitled to reply to a personal attack?

The Chairman: Not on the Amendment.

Mr. Maxton: I am sorry I raised the matter at all. I merely wanted to say that I hoped that the hon. Member, having taken the step of going against the Conservative machine, would go one step further and throw off the obvious control which it has over his thinking. I have been interested in the way in which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative benches have obstructed the Amendment. May I particularly congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank)? After nearly 20 years of responsible Government office, he has resumed in a matter of minutes his old position as chief obstructionist for the Conservative Party.

4 p.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. Is it in Order for the hon. Member to make imputations against a right hon. Gentleman in this Committee?

The Chairman: It must be clearly understood that there must not be any imputation of motives. I gathered that the hon. Member was speaking rather humorously than otherwise.

Mr. Maxton: It is not my intention to be unkind to Conservative Members and I will say no more than that I watched hon. Members with great interest. The first Member was surprised, the next was amazed, the third was astounded and the fourth had suffered very grave anxiety. Obviously, hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway are in a bad mental state. This is all over a very trifling matter. [Hon. Members: "No."] That is how I regard it, and I have been saying to myself, "I wonder what will happen to these fellows when they come up against something serious." All that is being demanded here is the right to make regulations about certain matters and the Conservatives are asking the Undersecretary, on the basis of the Amendment, to make declarations about demobilisation, requisitioning of property, direction of labour—all matters of high policy upon which hon. and right hon. Members rightly say there is considerable interest in the country. None of these things could be done by regulations smuggled through on the basis of an Amendment inserted in this Bill, and every hon. and right hon. Gentleman above the gangway who has taken part in this Debate is just as well aware of that as I am.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): I am not in grave anxiety, I am not alarmed and I am not anything else, but I would like to know one thing, and I hope that the Minister will make it clear. As I read the Amendment, it facilitates the demobilisation and resettlement of persons. It would seem to imply that the Government could advance the demobilisation of certain persons in the Forces for certain purposes. In other words, they put them at an advantage over the rest of the Armed Forces. That may be the object, I do not know, and I would like to know if that is the case. It would enable them to take persons whom they require from the Army, and Navy or the Royal Air Force, and in that way it would rather complicate matters for the rest of the Services. If that is the case, it is wrong and I would like, therefore, to be assured that that is not the intention. Does "resettlement of persons" mean that, if I live at Newcastle and there is a job of work in some other part of the country, the Government can say, "We will let


you out of the Army, Navy or Air Force, whichever it might be, if you are prepared to leave your home and go somewhere else"? If that is the object in view, I do not think that it will be very popular in certain parts of England where the people are displaced. The resettlement of persons is a very large subject and such a provision ought not to be put into a Bill of this kind unless that is the intention.

Mr. Marlowe: There seems to be some misapprehension in a number of quarters as to what this Sub-section does. I want the Home Secretary to deal with the point that I put before, namely, that there is no intention in this Sub-section of giving power to make new regulations but only to retain regulations in force. If hon. Members will look at Sub-section (4) of the Clause it will be seen that it only applies to regulations contained in Part III or Part IV of the Defence Regulations and certain other regulations. Why is it not possible for the Government to put their Bill in this form, namely, that they propose to retain, say, Regulations 1, 2, 3, 10 or 20 and then we would know precisely what regulation it was that they intended to maintain. What makes us suspicious is that they have chosen an infinitive way to choose what regulation they are going to retain. What objection is there to saying which regulation they wish to retain?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): We have had a very interesting and, at times, amusing discussion on this Amendment and I must congratulate right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite on the strength of their imagination this afternoon. They really have been able to discover a number of things in this simple Amendment which I should have thought it was obvious were not actually covered by it. Perhaps it would be helpful if I took the specific question put to me by the right hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle (Sir C. Headlam) it would enable me to show the scope of this Amendment. We are in a process of demobilising a very large number of men and women from the Forces into a country, which, since they were enlisted, has suffered very considerable losses in the way of dwelling houses, factories and other things that are necessary to provide these

demobilised people with homes and employment. It will be necessary in certain cases to make arrangements for these people's resettlement in the ordinary civilian life of the country, and that is the context in which we use this word. It is not taking them from one part of the country to another; but in respect of a man whose natural home is in Newcastle, who has a job in Newcastle to which he wishes to go but for whom there is no adequate accommodation, such accommodation could be acquired for him under the powers we propose to take under this Amendment.
The same thing applies in regard to the orderly disposal of surplus material. The Act of the last Parliament—the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act—under which the storage of material is now being carried on comes to an end on 24th February next. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who were in the last Parliament will know that they dropped this Bill, and only extended the Act for six months. As my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade said, it was the first intimation we had that they knew that they were going to lose the General Election in order that they could place us in the difficulties that confront us to-day. We have, between now and 24th February next, to provide for the use after 24th February next of regulations that would otherwise expire on that date. There are various dumps about the country where material is being now stored. It may be necessary in order to dispose of some of that material to move it to certain sites not at present under the control of the Government, where it can be sold or otherwise dealt with. We would require to carry on with the powers we now have in order to do that. There is nothing in the proposed Amendment which deals with the direction of labour, that is, directing a man into a job in some part of the country other than that in which he lives or in which there is a job which he does not want to undertake. That is not in this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: This is not covered?

Mr. Ede: I am advised that it would not cover it, and it is not our intention to use the Amendment to deal with that.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: This is a very important point. May we have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that this Amendment will not be used in any way with an element of compulsion in the resettlement outlined in the Bill? May we have a direct assurance that this Amendment will not be interpreted for that purpose?

Mr. Ede: This Amendment will certainly be used for compulsion, but not for compulsion of the kind which has just been put to me. If we required a piece of land for the kind of purpose I have just indicated or a dwelling-house for a man in the circumstances that I suggested, to the right hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle, we should use the compulsory powers that the Regulation gives us to take that piece of land.

Mr. Baxter: Will that apply to human beings?

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman might have allowed me to finish. I had already said that under this Amendment we do not propose to take any powers for the direction of labour in the way in which that is understood by saying to a man, "You are a plumber, you must go and do paper hanging," or "You have a job in Newcastle, but we want you to work in Salisbury." I am advised that that would not be considered to come under the provision which deals with the man who comes out of the Army and wants to go back to the place where his ordinary vocation is, but for whom, owing to the deplorable circumstances in the country which include the loss of houses due to enemy action, we want to have powers to provide the necessary accommodation.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: May I suggest that what the right hon. Gentleman is saying might be made a little more precise and so help the Committee to get on with business? He is saying that nothing in the Clause is going to apply to anything other than property and material. If that is the intention, could not the Clause be redrafted on the Report stage and could he not give us the assurance we want?

Mr. Ede: I am not undertaking to re-draft the Amendment at all on any argument put to me so far. I have given the most explicit assurance that there is no intention of applying this in order to move

persons against their will; but in order to secure that the work of the country should be carried on efficiently, it may be necessary to re-settle persons in the place where they want to be. Those of us who had some experience after the last war of the difficulty of getting houses when we were demobilised will appreciate the point. I imagine it will be some consolation to the men and women in the Forces to know that we are taking adequate steps to be able, as far as possible, to use the existing accommodation in the country to place them where their work is situated. There might be some service involved. I have done my best to indicate that all the sinister purposes that were thought might lurk in these words are not, in our opinion, to be found in them.
These words have been very carefully drafted to secure the ends I have in view. We have had, I think, a very full discussion on this Amendment, and I hope that, with the assurances I have been able to give, the Committee will now agree to accept it.

4.15 p.m.

Sir Harold Webbe: I am afraid the whole thing is entirely unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, as we all expected, has given a most reasonable explanation of what, in the present mind of the Government, it is intended to do with this particular Amendment to the Clause. I do not think any hon. Member will object to the powers which exist under the Defence of the Realm Act being used in the kind of circumstances and for the kind of purpose which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, but, for the rest, it has left the Committee in the position that we have no guarantee whatever that the Clause cannot be used in the kind of way which has been suggested by hon. Members on this side. The Home Secretary has merely told us that it is not the intention of the Government so to use the powers which they will be taking. Quite frankly, that is not good enough. Whatever party or Government sits on the Front Bench opposite, the Committee of this House, and the House itself, should not be prepared to give powers to that Government merely on a pious expression of opinion by a Minister that they will not be abused. The right hon. Gentleman said that these words were not susceptible of the interpretation which


has been suggested. Can the right hon. Gentleman show any limitation whatever in the wording of the Clause as drafted at present? Surely, the powers are needed
to facilitate the demobilisation and resettlement….
but that covers almost anything, and I submit to the Committee that there is nothing in these words to prevent the powers which the Amendment will give to the Government being used, in fact, for the kind of direction of labour to which we, on this side of the Committee, are profoundly opposed and which, apparently, on the other side, is regarded as a great joke.

Mr. Keeling: There is another point which seems to me to arise. Can the Home Secretary give us an assurance that these resettlement powers to be given by the Amendment will not be used to turn people out of their own houses for the benefit of people to be resettled?

Mr. Marlowe: Will the Home Secretary answer my question about specified numbers?

Mr. Ede: I think the answer to that is that I do not think anyone can really foresee all that might have to be done during the coming winter. We take these powers, if the Committee will grant them to us, and we have to lay every one of the Regulations. If there is a single one which is regarded as oppressive, it goes in front of the Committee and has to come here, and, after all, though I do not

want to anticipate the discussion on a later stage of the Bill, all subsidiary Orders made under these Regulations now have to come before the scrutiny of the House. I think that, as far as one can have safeguards in the matter at all, the Committee is amply protected in that respect.

Mr. Keeling: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer my question about people being turned out of their homes for the benefit of people to be resettled?

Mr. Ede: I can give no pledge on that. It may be necessary to use these powers for such things as billeting, and I am certainly not, in the present state of the country, going to use words which might be implied as limiting what it may be necessary to do.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: In view of the explanation given by the Home Secretary that this Amendment refers only to premises, which is not clear from the wording itself, would he consider withdrawing it and reconsidering it for the Report stage? The last thing that any court of law does in this country is to consider the pious observations of the Home Secretary on the meaning of phrases that go into a Bill. It is the words themselves that have to stand in a court of law, and, as these words stand now, they do not limit the operations to premises or buildings.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 143.

Division No. 2.]
AYES.
[4.24 p.m.


Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)
Boardman, H.
Cocks, F. S.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Bottomley, A. G.
Coldrick, W.


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Collindridge, F.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bowen, Capt. R.
Colman, Miss G. M.


Allighan, Garry
Bowles, F. G.
Comyns, Dr. L.


Alpass, J. H.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Cook, T. F.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Corlett, Dr. J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Corvedale, Maj. Viscount


Attewell, H. G.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Cove, W. G.


Austin, H. L.
Brown, George (Belper)
Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Crossman, R. H. S.


Ayles, W. H.
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Daggar, G.


Bacon, Miss A.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Daines, P.


Balfour, A.
Burden, T. W.
Davies, A. E. (Burslem)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)


Barstow, P. G.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Barton, C.
Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Davies Harold (Leek)


Battley, J. R.
Callaghan, James
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Chamberlain, R. A.
Deer, G.


Berry, H.
Champion, A. J.
de Freitas, Sqn.-Ldr. G.


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Chater, D.
Diamond, J.


Binns, J.
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Dodds, N. N.


Blackburn, A. R.
Clitherow, R.
Donovan, T.


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Cluse, W. S.
Douglas, F. C. R.


Blyton, W. R.
Cobb, F. A.
Dugdale J. (W. Bromwich)




Dumpleton, C. W.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Skinnard, F. W.


Dye, S.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, F.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
MacMillan, M. K.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Fairhurst, F.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Farthing, W. J.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Follick, M.
Marquand, H. A.
Stamford, W.


Foot, M. M.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Steele, T.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Martin, J. H.
Stewart, Maj. M. (Fulham, E.)


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Maxton, J.
Stubbs, A. E.


Gallacher, W.
Mayhew, Maj. C. P.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Gibbins, J.
Medland, H. M.
Swingler, Capt. S.


Gibson, C. W.
Messer, F.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Gilzean, A.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Glanville, J. E.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Goodrich, H. E.
Montague, F.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Gould, Mrs. B. Ayrton
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Grey, C. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Thomas, J. R. (Dover)


Grierson, E.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Moyle, A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. G. R. (E'b'gh, E.)


Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Murray, J. D.
Thorneycroft, H.


Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Nally, W.
Thurtle, E.


Guy, W. H.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Tiffany, S.


Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Titterington, M. F.


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Tolley, L.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Oldfield, W. H.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Oliver, G. H.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hardy, E. A.
Orbach, M.
Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L.


Harrison, J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Palmer, A. M. F.
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Parker, J
Wadsworth, G.


Herbison, Miss M.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Walkden, E.


Hicks, G.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Walker, P. C. G. (Smethwick)


Hobson, C. R.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Holman, P.
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Warbey, W. N.


Horabin, T. L.
Perrins, W.
Watkins, T. E.


House, G.
Piratin, P.
Weitzman, D.


Hoy, J.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hubbard, T.
Popplewell, E.
Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pritt, D. N.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Proctor, W. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Pryde, D. J.
Whittaker, J. E.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Randall, H. E.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Ranger, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Rhodes, H.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Keenan, W.
Richards, R.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Kenyon, C.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)


Key, C. W.
Robens, A.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


King, E. M.
Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)
Williamson, T.


Kinley, J.
Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)
Willis, E.


Kirby, B. V.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Leonard, W.
Royle, C.
Wilson, J. H.


Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.
Sargood, R.
Wise, Major F. J.


Levy, Lt. B. W.
Scollan, T.
Woods, G. S.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Scott-Elliot, W.
Yates, V. F.


Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Lipson, D. L.
Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)
Younger, Maj. The Hon. K. G.


Longden, F.
Silkin, L.
Zilliacus, K.


Lyne, A. W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)



McAllister, G.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


McEntee, V. La T.
Simmons, C. J.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Pearson.


Mack, J. D.
Skeffington-Lodge, Lt. T. C.





NOES.


Aitken, Gp. Capt. The Hon. M.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Darling, Sir W. Y.


Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.
Butcher, H. W.
Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield


Astor, Capt. Hon. M.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Carson, E.
Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.


Baxter, A. B.
Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Channon, H.
Drayson, Capt. G. B.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Clarke, Col. R. S.
Duthie, W. S.


Birch, Lt.-Col. N.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Erroll, Col. F. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.


Bower, N.
Corbett, Lieut-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Fletcher, W. (Bury)


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gage, Lt.-Col. C.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.







Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Glossop, C. W. H.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Glyn, Sir R.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Ross, Sir R.


Gridley, Sir A.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Grimston, R. V.
M'Kie, J. H. (Galloway)
Scott, Lord W.


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Head, Brig. A. H.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Snadden, W. M.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A. A. H.
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.


Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Marples, Capt. A. E.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley
Marsden, Comdr. A.
Stoddart-Scott, Lt.-Col. M.


Holt, Lieut.-Comdr. J. L.
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Studholme, Maj. H. G.


Hope, Lt.-Col. Lord J.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Howard, The Hon. A.
Maude, J. C.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Mellor, Sir J.
Teeling, Flt. Lieut. W.


Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Touche, G. C.


Hurd, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Turton, R. H.


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.


Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Jarvis, Sir J.
Nield, Maj. B.
Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Ward, Group-Capt. The Hon. G. R.


Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. The Hn. L. W.
Nutting, A.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Keeling, Sqn.-Ldr. E. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Osborne, C.
Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.


Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Pitman, I. J.
York, Maj. C.


Linstead, H. N.
Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.).
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.



Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirral)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Raikes, H. V. 
Commander Agnew and


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Mr. Drewe.

4.37 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, at end, insert:
Provided that any such Order in Council shall cease to have effect twelve months after the last date upon which it was laid or relaid before Parliament in accordance with section four of this Act.
This Amendment has linked with it Amendments standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself to Clauses 2 and 4. The one to Clause 2 is in identical terms with this Amendment. The Amendment to Clause 4 is more or less consequential upon this Amendment. I should also mention that I have given notice of a manuscript drafting Amendment to Clause 4, page 3, line 33, after "laid," to insert "or relaid."
The same simple principle is involved in all these Amendments and I can see that it will be your wish, Major Milner, and for the convenience of the Committee that the principle should be discussed now upon this Amendment. The effect of this Amendment would be to provide that Orders in Council should cease to have effect 12 months after the last date upon which they were laid or relaid before Parliament. The purpose is to secure that the same control that Parliament is given over the making of Orders in Council shall be extended to their con-

tinuance. There would be no interruption at all in the continuity of the effect of an Order in Council unless it was interrupted by a successful Prayer in Parliament.
Clause 4, as all hon. Members appreciate, provides a fairly ample safeguard for Parliamentary review of an Order immediately after it has been made, but nowhere in existence, in this Bill or elsewhere, is there any provision for Parliament to supervise the continued existence of Orders once they have been made, laid, and allowed to pass without successful prayer. In order to give the Committee more clearly the idea which I have in mind, I will indicate the course of events which would normally take place. An Order in Council having been made, it would be laid, and let us assume that either it was not prayed against or the prayer was unsuccessful. It would then continue. If my Amendment were adopted, it would mean that it would have to be laid again before 12 months elapsed from the date on which it was first laid. It would then become capable, for a period of 40 days, of Parliamentary challenge. Supposing it survived, it would then continue untroubled for a further period of 12months, when it would again have to be laid and again become capable of Parliamentary challenge, and so on. I anticipate that during the transition period


we shall all expect to find the system of controls being tapered off.
We all hope—I think this hope will not be repudiated by the Home Secretary—that they will be tapered off rapidly, but it must happen that a number of Orders will be made which will be controversial when they are laid. It will also happen that a number of Orders will be made which are accepted as reasonably necessary at the time they are made but it is very probable that after they have been in existence for a year or more, there will be a considerable conflict of opinion as to whether or not they have outlived their necessity. Therefore my contention is that there should be a periodic opportunity for Parliamentary review.
I would commend my Amendment to the Government from this point of view—and I hope they will see it in the same way. I know that they are very much concerned about the relation between the available Parliamentary time and the large amount of business which they will have to get through in the near future. At the start there must be a large number of these statutory Orders made. I think it will make for the economy of Parliamentary time if they can see their way to adopt the principle of my Amendment, for this reason: When their new Orders in Council have been made, hon. Members, not only on this side of the House but in every part of the House, will be very dubious about allowing them to pass without Prayer unless they contain a time limit within their terms. If they do not contain an internal time limit, then I think hon. Members will feel very dubious about passing them without Prayer, having regard to the fact that they would have a five year run without any opportunity of Parliamentary review. If my Amendment were adopted, that feeling would not arise. Hon. Members would say, perhaps, "We are not quite sure about this Order in Council. We do not altogether like the look of it. But at any rate we shall be able to look at it again. Let us give it a run and see how it works out in practice, let us see what experience we gain as a result of its operation."

4.45 P.m.

I think it would be more convenient from the point of view of administration that there should be this Parliamentary

review, annually, of any Order provided under the terms of the Act rather than that it should be necessary to place a particular time limit on every Order. For this reason when an Order in Council reaches its time limit the Government have to make a further Order, whereas if Orders have no time limit, but are subject to an annual Parliamentary review, they will continue on their way, so long as they give satisfaction, without any disturbance from inside or outside Parliament.

This is not a party issue; it is a House of Commons matter and one which should commend itself to all sides of the Committee, because we all have a duty to ensure that Parliamentary control over the Executive is effective. So, I hope very much that the Government will not lightly dismiss this proposal. I believe it will make not only for more effective Parliamentary control, but will also be very convenient from the point of view of Departmental administration. If the Home Secretary should be unable to accept the Amendment as it stands I hope he will furnish us with a rather fuller explanation than he thought fit to give in the preceding Debate. I attach the greatest importance to this proposal from the point of view of control by Parliament over the continuance in operation of these Orders during this transitional stage.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I support the Amendment which has been so excellently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor). The Home Secretary said in the recent Debate that it was hoped to dispense with a considerable number of Regulations and that they would decline until but a few were left in operation. A lot of us will be very worried if we see Orders made and laid on the Table. Even though they have explanatory memoranda this sometimes makes them more mystifying than ever. We ought to avoid any unnecessary Prayers, and I cannot see why, if these Orders are to be reduced in number, they should not come under annual revision by Parliament.

Major Guy Lloyd: I would not like the Minister to reply to the arguments which have been so admirably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), and seconded by by hon.
and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower), without some attempt being made to strengthen that case or, at least, to reinforce it. This seems to be one of the acid tests in this Bill. If the Government are sincere—and the Minister was at pains on the Second Reading to emphasise that they are, and that they have no ulterior motives in this Bill—what possible objection could they have to all these Regulations and Orders in Council, which no one has had adequate opportunity of studying and which no one Member can say he has read, being laid and re-laid every year so that the House may have an opportunity of looking at them? If that is not done we shall have an accumulation of Orders piling up, which most of us will not have the opportunity of reading. Some of us have no particular objection to some of these Orders provided they are for only a year but if some of them, which we cannot understand because their language makes them incomprehensible, or because they are too long, are to continue for five years we shall have an accumulation of Regulations which no one has properly examined. It is travesty of Parliamentary government that such a suggestion should be made. Here is the acid test of sincerity. Why should we not have an opportunity of looking at these matters every year?

Mr. Bowles: I would ask new Members of the House not to be led away by the arguments—if they can be called arguments—which we have just heard from the other side. It is quite obvious that they are trying to impede legislation. It is nonsense to suggest that all these Regulations and Orders should be laid before the House each year. May I remind the Committee that there was set up at the beginning of this Session, after some pressure on the last Government, a Select Committee to examine all these statutory Rules and Orders as and when they are laid before the House? It was obvious that Members have not the time to examine such Regulations and Orders, even if they could understand them, so we have this Select Committee, of which I happen to be a member. [An Hon. Member: "Honourable or honoured?"] I am honoured to be on the Committee. We have the benefit of the expert advice of Mr. Speaker's

Counsel, Sir Cecil Carr, and the work is done very well. I think we have had only one meeting, but—

Mr. C. S. Taylor: For the benefit of the new Members whom the hon. Member is addressing will he say whether that Committee reports on matters of policy which are contained in these Orders?

Mr. Bowles: What the Committee does is to see whether they are in order, intelligible, whether they introduce matters of importance which we think should be submitted to the House so that Members as a whole should have their attention called to them. It is a scrutinising, a watchdog, Committee, doing on behalf of the House the kind of job which was recognised in the last Parliament as being invaluable.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: May I ask a question with the idea of assisting the hon. Member's argument? Once this honoured Committee has done its work and given its blessing to the regulation has it any further interest? Can it at any given time look at the Regulation again and say, "Things have happened, this is wrong"? That Committee has no authority over policy at all, and what the hon. Gentleman has just said in no way meets the point raised in the Amendment.

Mr. Bowles: As I have said, the House set up this Select Committee to examine on their behalf what was in these Regulations. The Committee report to the House, and if the Committee think the attention of the House should be called to anything special it is the Committee's duty to do this—

Mr. E. P. Smith: Subject to very rigid restrictions.

Mr. Bowles: —and I therefore cordially invite the Committee not to be led away by what has been said from the other side. The welfare of delegated legislation of this kind is in good hands indeed, and I think we ought to get on with the next Amendment.

Sir J. Mellor: Surely the Committee of which the hon. Gentleman has been speaking has no control whatsoever over the continuance in operation of Orders in Council?

Mr. Bowles: We are now passing a Bill which, if it goes through unamended, will


give the Minister power to make Regulations or Orders for the purpose of implementing the general policy of the Government. The policy of the Government is that these Regulations and Orders should be in force for five years, and not for one year. It is true that the Select Committee is not concerned with policy. All it is concerned with is to find out whether the Regulations are intra vires. There is nothing in the Amendment, and I suggest we should be very wary of the delaying tactics of hon. Members opposite and should say that we do not intend to be put off by Amendments of this kind.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I do not think the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) has helped very much by his intervention. While it is perfectly true that the Select Committee does excellent work in looking at the wording of these Regulations, all we are asking for is not that we shall challenge them once a year but that they shall lie on the Table for 40 days during which, if circumstances have altered completely, we can challenge them. We are asking that the rights of Parliament shall be asserted once every twelve months, and I am astonished that the hon. Member opposes that view. While there is no longer a Coalition Government in being Parliament itself is a Coalition. We are here to criticise and, if necessary, to support Government policy in trying to make Bills workable. There might come a moment in the life of the Government when they will be glad to have the support of Members on this side of the Committee, and I urge the Home Secretary to act as one of a Coalition in this discussion and grant the very wise and traditionally Parliamentary Amendment which has been moved.

5.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I regret the intervention of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) because he seems to be trying to introduce a party element into the discussion. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment made it abundantly clear, and I do not think there is any question about it, that this is not a party question. It is simply a question of machinery, and whether we can simplify what is liable to become a very big problem. The hon. Member for Nuneaton referred to the innumerable regulations that may be put out, but those who, like myself have worked in Gov-

ernment Departments for some time know how difficult it is to withdraw any power which a Department may have. When the question comes up for consideration as to whether or not such and such a power is still necessary, it goes around the Department for comment and, sooner or later, someone says that it will be difficult for him to say that the power may not be required in the future. That is sufficient; quite obviously, the Department is not going to advise its Minister to discard a power which it may require to use in the future.
There is nothing so dangerous to the public, the Department and the Government as to have dead legislation on hand. It is difficult enough, in all conscience, at present for the public to know what the law is. It is a terrible thing for them to know that there is a lot of dead law, which may be put into operation at any time against them. It is very wrong, as a matter of principle and quite apart from party politics, to build up a body of decaying law. The object of this Amendment is to ensure, what it is no longer possible for Members of Parliament to do—to continue to supervise all the regulations when they have once been passed. The Select Committee to which the hon. Member referred is not a policy Committee or a revision Committee: It simply deals with the regulation when it is first introduced. It cannot say to this House, "We advise that this Regulation should be reviewed in a couple of years." It is purely a fact-finding Committee within the limits of its terms of reference.
I remember that last week, the very strong support which I would like to claim for this argument was on the other side of the House. I was very impressed, as I believe we all were, by the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), and I referred to the Official Report of that speech, because I think it is very relevant indeed. He said, as many hon. Members will remember, with regard to the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill:
It is another example of delegated legislation—another example of a scheme the major details of which are going to be put forward in the form of Regulations.
That is what we are dealing with now.
Let us say at once—By all means have your delegated legislation so long as you have control. Without that, the Minister is going off to his private suite downstairs to make


his Regulations, and he will place his fledglings on the Table and say 'Kill them if you dare?'"—[Official Report, nth October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 519.]

Mr. Hale: The criticism there was that you were introducing a wide scheme of social insurance for permanent legislation, and the details of administration were not embodied in the Act. That is a wholly different matter. If you are legislating permanently for things, my point is that we ought to have more details. Please do not put into my mouth any disapproval of the proposals that are before the Committee at this moment.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I welcome the disclaimer of the hon. Member for Oldham and I think the Committee will agree that I may be exonerated from any intention of wishing to misquote him or misconstrue his arguments, but what is said there confirms my opinion. We are here dealing with an unknown amount of delegated legislation which may be necessary for a limited time for the whole operation for which it is purported to be put into operation. But whatever the case may be, it cannot but be to the advantage of the Government, the public, in particular, and the Department if it must be subject to review annually and laid upon the Table, so that both we and the Department in question can really consider whether it is still necessary to have these statutory powers in existence.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I think there are obviously some doubts in the minds of some hon. Members about the functions of the Scrutiny Committee, the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders. Although this Committee vets statutory rules and orders it does not in any way absolve hon. Members from their own particular function of studying and understanding the policy contained in these statutory rules and orders. I can only say again, following the remarks of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) and giving some advice myself to new Members, that if statutory rules and orders come out of Government Departments in the same numbers as they have done in the past few years, then no man, with any ordinary working hours at his disposal, will ever be able to study the policy contained in those rules and orders. If the Committee accepts this recommendation, it gives hon. Members this oppor-

tunity: We cannot examine all the statutory rules and orders that are being turned out like sausages. We cannot read them or study them all. We have not the time to do it. It may be that the first time an hon. Member hears of a statutory rule and order is when a constituent writes to him and says, "I am suffering under the provisions of this rule and order." The hon. Member then looks at the order, for the first time, and says, "My goodness, did I really allow that to get through the House without making some protest?"
This Amendment gives the Member of Parliament a reasonable chance. At the end of a year, after a rule and order has been tried and tested, he will find out very clearly from his constituents and from its application whether that rule and order is working fairly and satisfactorily or not. When the hon. Member who moved this Amendment spoke about orders being "laid," it reminded me of the egg. At the time of laying it may be a good egg, but 12 months after it may be a thoroughly undesirable and bad egg which should be discarded. Therefore, I hope this Amendment will be accepted, because I believe it is thoroughly reasonable and non-party and is purely a House of Commons matter.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: The hon. Member tells us that these rules and orders are being turned out like sausages out of a sausage machine. Will he tell me how many we have had in the last few days or weeks?

Mr. Taylor: In the last year something like 3,000.

Mr. Walkden: Can the hon. Member tell us how many since this Government came into office?

Mr. Taylor: No, the hon. Member, who is connected very closely with the present Government, can give the Committee those facts.

Mr. Glossop: It is ten years since I last had the opportunity of addressing a Committee of this House, and during that somewhat long interval, I have spent quite a few years as a civil servant—that group of people who badger their Ministers to make these Orders in Council. In that capacity I have had an opportunity of seeing the working or the non-satisfactory working of some of these


Orders in Council that have been made. Parliament and the Government of the day may, with the best intention in the world, make an Order in Council which on paper appears to be very satisfactory; but when it has been in operation, it may be found to inflict considerable inconvenience and perhaps hardship on some of His Majesty's subjects. The public have put up with Orders in Council during war time, and, I am certain, they are prepared once again to put up with Orders in Council during the transitional period from war to peace. I would respectfully say, however, that we are not here to legislate for our own benefit; we are here to legislate for the people who send us to this House. I feel that it would be maintaining the good will of the country towards Parliament if the country felt that when an Order in Council had been made, there was an opportunity for it to be reconsidered at the end of 12 months, rather than to pass an Order in Council, with very little opportunity for Members to study it at the time it is laid on the Table, which may be a bad Order in Council and inflict hardship and injustice on the people for a matter of five years. As the Mover of this Amendment says, this is not a party Amendment; it is an Amendment not only to safeguard the privileges of Members of this House but one designed to safeguard and protect the subjects in the country and the people who send us to his House.

Mr. Oliver: The speech which was delivered by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) I think laid to rest the allegation that hon. Members had had no opportunity of considering Regulations. Of course they have an opportunity to consider Regulations by virtue of the Committee which is specifically set up for that purpose.

Mr. E. P. Smith: They have no opportunity of considering the merits.

Mr. Oliver: They have an opportunity of considering the Regulations. There can be no doubt about that, and they can refer and bring back to this House anything in those Regulations, or draw the attention of hon. Members of this House to any matter to which they think the attention of the House should be drawn. [Hon. Members: "No."] Oh, yes, there is not much substance in the contention that hon. Members have

no opportunity of considering these matters. No doubt—

Mr. C. S. Taylor: We must get this quite clear. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not trying to mislead the Commit tee in any way, but the Scrutiny Committee does not draw attention to the merits or demerits of any particular Statutory Rule or Order. It merely draws the attention of the House to certain specific matters concerning which the terms of reference were laid down. It is not the function of the Committee to consider the merits of an Order.

Mr. Oliver: I think the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) indicated quite clearly that it was not the function of the Committee to deal with policy. That was stated quite categorically and, there fore, the point, I think, which was made by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) does not seem to have a great deal of substance, and, may I say, that it has no substance whatever on the point that hon. Members have a kind of mental indigestion. In addition to what the Committee might do—

Mr. Baxter: I did not make that point.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Oliver: In addition to that, if a Member of this House is interested in a specific Regulation, he is not precluded from raising a matter in which he is so vitally interested, and if a Member was vitally interested in a Regulation or some aspect of legislation affected by a Regulation, there can be no doubt he would be on his feet to draw attention to the hardship or anomaly of the matter of which he complained.
The Committee should have its attention drawn to the Home Secretary's speech on the Second Reading of this Bill when he said:
I commend this Bill to the House, and I desire to give hon. Members, in no matter what part of the House they may sit, this assurance, that as the powers can and should be dispensed with, they will be given up. We have no desire for control for control's sake any more than has any other Member of this House."—[Official Report, 9th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 124.]
I think that that is a reasonable assurance, because if the hon. Member's Amendment were accepted, it would have the effect of a periodic review, and it would have the purpose of defeating the intention of the Statute itself, because this


Bill is drafted and designed for five years. Therefore, if there could be a periodic review of the many Regulations which will no doubt be embraced or incorporated or added or brought within the ambit of this Bill, there would be the possibility of defeating the purpose of the Bill, which is, to maintain the Regulations for five years. What would be the purpose of a discussion unless it were to annul the Regulation? The whole purpose of the Statute would or might be defeated

Sir J. Mellor: Does the hon. Gentleman really persist in the astonishing argument that in his view it is desirable that the Government should be able to maintain in being an Order in Council when the majority of the House wished it to be annulled? That is the logical point of his argument.

Mr. Oliver: Of course, I mean what I say. There is nothing ambiguous about that. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, because he is not a new Member of this House. He knows full well that if any of these Regulations contain, in their operation, something objectionable, there are many Parliamentary opportunities, and one in particular which I know the hon. Member would not hesitate to use. That would be when the opportunity was presented to hon. Members to raise any point about the Minister's salary.

Sir J. Mellor: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not mean to argue that avote can conveniently be taken on the continuance in operation of a specific Order in Council on the occasion when the Minister's salary is before us, when there is a fairly wide Debate upon the administration of that Minister's Department?

Mr. Oliver: As the hon. Member well knows, the conduct of the Minister or anything for which he responsible can always be raised then. There would not be a specific vote, but there would be raised in a very concrete form the aspect of the Regulation to which objection was taken.
I think it will be observed that by the nature of some of the Regulations, they will require to be continued much longer than one year. It is impossible at this juncture to say that the important Regulations will have fulfilled their usefulness in the short period of 12 months. Is it to be suggested in the case of the building

industry, for instance, that the regulations controlling materials and prices and the braiding of houses will be exhausted within 12 months of their being laid? Is it suggested, too, that in matters connected with clothing and footwear and textiles it will be possible to discontinue control in respect of prices within a year. It is obvious that the whole aim of this Amendment is designed to bring about a Parliamentary holiday every year for the purpose of having an annual discussion on the question of controls generally. From that aspect it would not be in the public interest to accept this Amendment, and I must inform the hon. Member, with regret, that the Government cannot accept the proposition he has laid before the Committee.

Mr. Harold Roberts: My purpose in rising is to speak as one of the new Members who were admonished and instructed by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). The matter appears to me in this way. The Government have a Bill before the Committee which will, if carried as it is drafted, have a life of five years. The Government will have power under the Measure to make regulations from time to time. The Amendment proposed is that these regulations shall come under review annually, and that they can then, if it is desired on the merits, be continued. The hon. Member for Nuneaton was rather afraid that innocent people like myself might be led astray by this Amendment, and so he has put me right, first of all by pointing out that notice is taken of every regulation issued because there is a Select Committee, of which he is a member, which looks fully into the matter. In cross-examination it turns out that the Select Committee deals with ambit, competence, procedure, but not with merit. The real object of the Amendment we are considering arises from the fact that on merits it is very hard for a Member to scrutinise every proposed Order. I would only say that a regulation which appears to be quite good may in a year turn out to be very inconvenient, and therefore it is a good thing that the matter should be reviewed. Accordingly the instruction given to me by the hon. Member for Nuneaton fails to impress me in that regard.
I am much impressed by a speech by the Home Secretary which I did not have the advantage of hearing, but which I


have heard quoted from HANSARD. I understand that he tells us that the Government do not for one moment want to hang on to powers that have become obsolescent, and that they would desire that obsolescent matters should be reviewed from time to time. For reasons which have been mentioned it is asking too much of human nature to suppose that a Government Department will ever commit hara-kiri. It appears to me that if we are to have what is the design and intention of the Home Secretary, an Amendment of this kind is highly desirable, because it means that as the matters come up for review annually his intention of a scrutiny of superfluous powers would be carried out. If I may hark back to the hon. Member for Nuneaton, it was suggested by him that this Amendment is in direct conflict

with the Bill, because the intention of the Government is that it should last for five years and this Amendment is for one year. With great respect to a senior Member, I submit he is confusing two things which are not alike.

It is the intention of the Government, if the House permits, to take powers for five years to do something, but that does not mean that everything it does must necessarily endure for five years. On the contrary many of the Orders, on the face of them, will be for a less period, and therefore that argument against the Amendment seems to me also to fail.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 311.

Division No. 3.]
AYES.
[5.28 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Osborne, C.


Aitken, Gp. Capt. The Hon. M.
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Pitman, I. J.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley
Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Baxter, A. B.
Holt, Lieut.-Comdr. J. L.
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Lord J.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Howard, The Hon. A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Birch, Lt.-Col. N.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Raikes, H. V.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bower, N.
Hurd, A.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh W.).
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.
Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bromley-Davonport, Lt.-Col. W.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Ropner, Col. L.


Buchan Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ross, Sir R.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. The Hn. L. W.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Sanderson, Sir F.


Carson, E.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Scott, Lord W.


Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.
Lambert, G.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smithers, Sir W.


Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.
Linstead, H. N.
Snadden, W. M.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.).
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirral)
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stoddart-Scott, Lt.-Col. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Studholme, Maj. H. G.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


De la Bère, R.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Teeling, Flt.-Lieut. W.


Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
M'Kie, J. H. (Galloway)
Touche, G. C.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Turton, R. H.


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Vane, Col. W. M. T.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Erroll, Col. F. J.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A. A. H.
Ward, Group Capt. The Hon. G. R.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marples, Capt. A. E.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Foster, Brig. J. G. (Northwich)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.


Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Maude, J. C.
White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)


Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Molson, A. H. E.
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Glyn, Sir R.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
York, C.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gridley, Sir A.
Nicholson, G.



Grimston, R. V.
Nield, B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Major Mott-Radclyffe and


Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hon. J. H.
Nutting, A.
Mr. Drewe.


Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Mr. Drewe.



NOES.


Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Martin, J. H.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Maxton, J.


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mayhew, Maj. C. P.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Fairhurst, F.
Medland, H. M.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Farthing, W. J.
Messer, F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Follick, M.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Alpass, J. H.
Foot, M. M.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Montague, F.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Attewell, H. C.
Gallacher, W.
Morley, R.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Gibbins, J.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Austin, H. L.
Gibson, C. W.
Morris, R. H. (Carmarthen)


Awbery, S. S.
Gilzean, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Ayles, W. H.
Glanville, J. E.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham)


Bacon, Miss A.
Goodrich, H. E.
Moyle, A.


Balfour, A.
Gould, Mrs. B. Ayrton
Murray, J. D.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Nally, W.


Barstow, P. G.
Grenfell, D. R.
Naylor, T. E.


Barton, C.
Grey, C. F.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Grierson, E.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Bellenger, F. J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Benson, G.
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Oldfield, W. H.


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Guy, W. H.
Oliver, G. H.


Binns, J.
Hale, L.
Orbach, M.


Blackburn, A. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare)
Paget, R. T.


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Blyton, W. R.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Parker, J.


Boardman, H.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Parkin, Flt-Lieut. B. T.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hardy, E. A.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Harrison, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Bowen, Capt. R.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Bowles, F. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Perrins, W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Herbison, Miss M.
Piratin, P.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hicks, G.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hobson, C. R.
Popplewell, E.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Holman, P.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Brown, George (Belper)
Horabin, T. L.
Pritt, D. N.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
House, G.
Proctor, W. T.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hoy, J.
Pryde, D. J.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hubbard, T.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Randall, H. E.


Burden, T. W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ranger, J.


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Reeves, J.


Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Hynd H. (Hackney, C.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Callaghan, James.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rhodes, H.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Janner, B.
Richards, R.


Champion, A. J.
Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Chater D.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Robens, A.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)


Clitherow, R.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)


Cluse, W. S.
Keenan, W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Cobb, F. A.
Kenyon, C.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Cocks, F. S.
Key, C. W.
Royle, C.


Coldrick, W.
King, E. M.
Sargood, R.


Collick, P.
Kinley, J.
Scollan, T.


Collindridg, F.
Kirby, B. V.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Segal, Sq. Ldr. S.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Cook, T. F.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Leonard, W.
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)


Corvedale, Maj. Viscount
Levy, Lt. B. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Shurmer, P.


Crawley, Flt.-Lieul. A.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Silkin, L.


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington).


Daggar, G.
Lipson, D. L.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Daines, P.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Simmons, C. J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Longden, F.
Skeffington, A. M.


Davies, A. E. (Burslem)
Lyne, A. W.
Skeffington-Lodge, Lt. T. C.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
McAllister, G.
Skinnard, F. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Mack, J. D.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Deer, G.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


de Freitas, Sqn.-Ldr. G.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Diamond, J.
McLeavy, F.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Dodds, N. N.
MacMillan, M. K.
Solley, L. J.


Donovan, T.
McNeil, H.
Sorensen, R. W.


Douglas, F. C. R.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Sparks, J. A.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stamford, W.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Steele, T.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Stewart, Maj. M. (Fulham, E.)


Dye, S.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Stokes, R. R.






Stubbs, A. E.
Viant, S. P.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Wadsworth, G.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Swingler, Capt. S.
Walkden, E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Walker, P. C. G. (Smethwick)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Williamson, T.


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Willis, E.


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Warbey, W. N.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Watkins, T. E.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Wilson, J. H.


Thomas, J. R. (Dover)
Weitzman, D.
Wise, Major F. J.


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Woodburn, A.


Thomson, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)
Woods, G. S.


Thorneycroft, H.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Thurtle, E.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Yates, V. F.


Tiffany, S.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Titterington, M. F.
Whittaker, J. E.
Younger, Maj. The Hon. K. G.


Tolley, L.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Zilliacus, K.


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Wilkes, Maj. L.



Turner-Samuels, M.
Wilkins, W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L.
Wilkinson, Rt. Hon. Ellen
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Pearson.


Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)



Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Glanville: On apoint of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. Might I ask if the Opposition Whips would exercise greater influence over their flock in preventing them from obstructing the Government side—

Hon. Members: Order.

5.45 P.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, at end, insert:
Provided that such adaptations shall not include any new authority or extension of authority to take possession or control, on behalf of His Majesty of any property or undertaking or to acquire on behalf of His Majesty any property other than land or to enter and search any premises; and provided that such adaptations shall not provide for the amending of any enactment, for suspending the operation of any enactment and for applying any enactment with or without modification and shall not provide for requiring persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of His Majesty.
As the Committee are aware, this Clause makes it possible to adapt to the new purposes set out in the Clause any Regulations in Parts III and IV of the General Regulations as well as certain others. I do not know whether hon. Members realise it, but the Regulations in Parts III and IV which are still in existence run to something like 160 pages of print. They differ very much in character. Some of them are extremely drastic and go the full length to which they are entitled to go under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts of 1939 and 1940, under which they are made. Many others are by no means so drastic. I think it was the constant policy of the Coalition Government while we remained together never to take much more drastic powers than the needs of a particular situation demanded. Accordingly, many

of these Regulations do not go anything like so far in the way of strict control as it would have been legally possible for them to do.
I have always understood that the proper purpose of Clause 1 is to enable existing controls to be continued for a period, subject to comparatively minor modifications or relaxations, and that the aim of both the Government and ourselves is to taper off gradually the operation of existing Regulations; only they propose to do it in a halting and gradual way and we had proposed to do it more quickly. I gather that our aim is the same, although our pace would be very different. If that is so, I take it that the Government are of the same mind as we are here, that there should be no tightening up of existing powers. Existing powers may be continued or to some extent modified or relaxed. They may be abolished altogether ultimately, but they will not be tightened. I have seen or heard nothing in the course of the Debates on the Bill to suggest that the Government were going to tighten up, in the course of adapting under Clause 1.
I am therefore very hopeful that the Government will accept the Amendment, but before I leave it to them to say whether they will do so or not I think it is right that I should explain in a little more detail what the Amendment actually does. Hon. Members will remember that the framework of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, is that in the first Sub-section general powers are given for making Regulations for certain purposes there set out, to secure:
the public safety, the defence of the Realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of any war…and for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community.


It was thought that those general powers would not be enough for war-time, and therefore there were superadded to them further general powers, set out in Subsections (2), (3) and (4). Sub-section (2, b) authorises:
the taking of possession or control…of any property or undertaking
the acquisition, on behalf of His Majesty, of any property other than land.
Paragraph (c) authorises:
the entering and search of any premises,
and paragraph (d) authorises:
amending any enactment…suspending the operation of any enactment,
and so on.
My proposition is this: In so far as any existing Defence Regulation contained in the book does not make use of those special powers contained in Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 1 of the 1939 Act, those special powers should not now be imported into any Regulation for the first time. The point is made even more important when we come to the Act of 1940, the Dunkirk Act, if I may call it so, which authorises Regulations,
for requiring persons to place themselves, their services, and their property at the disposal of His Majesty,
where it appears to him to be necessary or expedient for the same purposes. If those powers were not necessary at or after the crisis of the war, plainly, and I think everybody would agree, they ought not now to be imported into any Regulation for the first time.
Therefore I hardly think that the right hon. Gentleman can raise any objection to the last half of the Amendment, namely, where it says that the adaptations which are contemplated shall not include
any new authority or extension of authority,
shall not, for example, require persons to place themselves, their lives or their property at the disposal of His Majesty. I can hardly think that the right hon. Gentleman wants to bring in that kind of control in circumstances where it does not already exist. I will go further than that and say that I see nothing in what has been said to suggest, for example, that there should be power to take possession of "any undertaking," in circumstances where that power does not already exist, or that there should be power to acquire

property in circumstances where the power does not exist already. The purpose of the Clause is adaptation and not extension of control, and I want to make that point clear and explicit on the face of the Bill.
I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman or somebody else may say, "Why was not that thought necessary in the original Coalition draft of the Bill? Why did those words not appear there?" For a very simple reason. If you are setting out to get rid of the controls within two years it is not sense that anybody should begin by trying to tighten them up. Obviously, nobody could have any such intention. If you are seeking, however, to maintain those controls for five ears, there is a very distinct danger that certain persons may be tempted to start by tightening them up. Therefore, our object is to get from the Government a clear statement. I hope that they will accept the Amendment, but if they will not, let them give us some alternative which may make it clear that their policy is not to tighten control but, at the worst, to maintain it and at the best to relax it.

Mr. Ede: May I say that I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken, for the very clear way in which he has put the Amendment before the Committee? I can deal with the last sentences he used, in order to illustrate a point. He said that he hoped there would be adaptation and not extension of control, but it is necessary that we should be able to extend all the powers that we now have to the new purposes for which the Bill is designed. I am afraid that, if that principle is accepted, at any rate as the Government's view on the matter, it will be seen that we cannot accept the limiting words which this proviso proposes to impose on us. I have with me my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. He maybe faced in the very near future with the difficulty of maintaining the new purposes, including the purposes of how we are going to demobilise men—against which the Opposition voted this afternoon—of acquiring property, taking over undertakings, and doing things of that description. We do not desire to be limited in any way in our efforts to deal with that matter.
Again, when it comes to dealing with the components of houses for the housing pro-


gramme of the Government, we may have to take over undertakings that, I am advised, we should be precluded from taking over if we did not have the powers and if we were limited by the wording of the Amendment. More important than all, it may be necessary to extend Defence Regulation 55 to regulate the production and distribution of essential, rationed commodities. That inevitably involves an extension of authority to take possession and control. With the general attitude that the right hon. and learned Gentleman attributed to the Government, that we do not desire to use these powers in any way oppressively, I agree, but we must arm ourselves, in view of the situation in which the country now is with the necessary powers to deal with situations as they arise. If we should propose—of course, we continually come back to this point—any Regulation that is harsh and uncomfortable, the House can Pray against it, and after it has been annulled and its usefulness is finished, or even if we use it harshly, the House has adequate remedies in order to ensure that our wrongdoing shall be brought to light. I therefore hope that the Committee will be willing not to limit the Clause in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman desires
We are faced—and I repeat what I said on another Amendment as it is applicable to this Amendment—with the matter of housing, with getting on with the task of restoring the export trade, and with other problems which confront the country. It is a situation that has never existed in the history of the country, and no matter what Government had been on this side of the House I believe they would have had to come to the House for these powers. The mere fact that the Coalition Government introduced the Bill is an indication that they felt that some such powers as these were necessary. I must remind hon. Members opposite that no matter how fiercely they denounced controls at the General Election, if we take at the value they put on them the bogies they raised as to our intentions with regard to controls, we might say, in submitting the Bill to the House, that we are astonished at our own moderation.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Reid: I agree that it is difficult to draw a dividing line here, and if there is any point on which the Government have

a genuine case, I am not going to try and stress any difference of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman sought to justify a few of the things to which we take exception, but he has not attempted to justify the rest. Suppose I go through this Amendment and see which are the bits which the right hon. Gentleman thinks he would like to keep and which are the bits he agrees to give away. Perhaps in that way we may be able to narrow down the issue to some extent. Let us take the first words:
Provided that such adaptations shall not include any new authority or extension of authority.
I can see that he has a point for extension of authority and that, if he has Regulation 55, which contains drastic powers of this character to do certain things, he may want to extend it slightly to do some more things of the same kind. He did not say a word, however, to justify any new authority being taken; he dealt only with an extension of existing authority. So I think he can give us "new authority." The next words are:
to take possession or control, on behalf of His Majesty, of any property or undertaking.
I understand that he may want to take possession of property—the Minister of Supply appears to want to do that—but surely he does not want to take possession of undertakings at this time of day, because that is a penal provision if an undertaking is not doing what it should be doing. Certain cases have come up during the war of undertakings being taken over. Surely we are not going to carry that over into peace-time. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman may want to keep authority to take over property, but he ought to give up authority to take over an undertaking. The next words in the Amendment are:
or to acquire on behalf of His Majesty any property other than land or to enter and search any premises.
Perhaps there is a case for having power to acquire a certain number of chattels, although that wants to be narrowly regarded, but surely there is no need for extra powers to enter and search premises. That was a shorthand method adopted during the war, and surely we can now get back to the ordinary law of the land with regard to this. The Amendment goes on:


and provided that such adaptations shall not provide for the amending of any enactment, for suspending the operation of any enactment and for applying any enactment with or without modification.
Here we come to a crucial question. It has been laid down again and again by the Ministers' Powers Report and by all manner of authorities that delegated legislation ought not to have the power of altering Acts of Parliament. There is no reason for it at all. There was a reason in war-time when things had to be done suddenly. An emergency might arise, the House might not be sitting, and we might have to pass a Defence Regulation within a matter of hours, certainly a matter of days, which might have great repercussions on existing Acts of Parliament which it was necessary to alter. Now in peace-time, however, when we can see ahead, when the House sits regularly, there is no need to continue a power to alter enactments by Regulation. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman at least to give this up. Finally, there is the question of
requiring persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of His Majesty.
The right hon. Gentleman did not say a word about that in his reply. It is not only a war-time power, but a power that was only introduced at the crucial period of the war. I agree that the right hon. Gentleman has a partial case on the first third of the Amendment, but he has no case on the second third about modification of enactments. If he can show that he has a case on the third third for the extension of this power into peace-time, it gives one a poor view of the kind of world into which the right hon. Gentleman is to project us. I hope that he will give that part up as well. Therefore, I would ask for the acceptance of five-sixths of my Amendment—the second third and the third third in toto, and one-half of the first third.

Mr. Ede: I must congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his plausibility and on the estimate he makes of my generosity. I will make him this offer, that I will reconsider one-sixth of the Amendment, that is, the question of entering or searching any premises. I admit that I would like to reconsider that. After all, we have extended the scope of the Bill. That was one of the

objections that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) had on the Second Reading of the Bill. We have further extended the scope of the Bill by the Amendment for making the life of demobilised men easier, which we have already passed to-day. Therefore, it may be that on that we shall require some new authority. On the question of undertakings, I endeavoured specifically to reply to that in my earlier remarks. If we make a Regulation and someone does not play the game under the Regulation, it may be necessary in the national interest in the circumstances of our time to acquire or exercise control over the undertaking, and we mean to do it.
With regard to enactments we are, as we were intended to be, the victims of the action of the "Caretaker" Government. We have to deal with this matter between now and 24th February next, because after that date our power to make adaptations and so on vanishes. There are a few Measures that will have to be considered by this House between now and 24th February other than the Amendment of Sections and Sub-sections of Acts of Parliament that may be necessary to enable us to discharge the duties we have taken on ourselves. Therefore, we must rely on our ability to deal in a Defence Regulation with minor points in enactment that may require modification or adaptation. What I have said earlier about undertakings applies to the last phrases in the Amendment. We are determined that we are not going to be obstructed in our efforts to place this country where, in our opinion, it should be, with regard to social comfort at home, to starting up the export trade and to any of the problems that arise during the reconstruction period. We asked for a mandate from the country to be able to do this, and on 26th July we obtained it. We intend to carry it out.

Sir H. Webbe: May I ask the Home Secretary when he proposes to tell the House that he is departing in this Bill completely from the Explanatory Memorandum which appears on the cover of the Bill? That Memorandum, referring to this Clause, says:
This clause proposes to confer no power to make fresh Defence Regulations,
but only a power to extend the scope of those Regulations to new purposes and to


adapt them in such a way as to effect this new purpose. Now we hear from the Home Secretary that by "adaptations" he means any form of alteration, qualification and extension of existing Defence Regulations. What is the difference between taking a power to make new Defence Regulations and taking a power to alter existing ones in any direction and particular and to any extent? Surely it becomes farcical to speak of making no new Regulations when the Minister refuses steadfastly any kind of limitation on the alterations he can make. Under this Clause he can take three words of a Regulation and completely alter its whole sense and purpose by what he calls adaptation and extension. It is virtually wasting the time of the Committee to discuss a Bill which is completely at variance, on the Minister's own argument, with the Memorandum which is intended to convey the sense of the Bill.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: The assurance that the Home Secretary will reconsider the searching of premises at least gives us some confidence that he will not become known as the Fouché of the present regime. That is the first small measure of satisfaction we have been able to extract from the discussions to-day. I thought that the hon. Gentleman who intervened to ask the Whips on this side to suppress further obstruction on our part unconsciously and innocently expressed the real spirit of the party opposite. The more we discuss this Measure and the more we hear about it, the more we see that it has all the hallmarks of coming totalitarianism plus the base effrontery of confiscation. [Laughter.] The prophet has always been laughed at by the fools, and that custom does not change as centuries go on. The psychology that we see opposite is influenced by the Kerensky motif, and I am not certain that we are not witnessing a Kerensky regime in action, a regime stronger than the amiable gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench at the moment. Many hon. Members behind them are working and looking towards that day. I give the Home Secretary that warning.
I really rose to ask the Home Secretary a question. He said that his party asked for a clear mandate, that they got it, and that the acceptance of any part of this Amendment would be false to the mandate. May I ask him whether he or

any member of his party, in the policy put forward at the General Election, said that the Labour Party, if put into power, would require persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of His Majesty? If they said that during the Election, is that now definitely the policy of this Government?

Mrs. Braddock: The people we represent have no property.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: As a matter of fact, hon. Members on that side of the Committee have always been in the habit of grabbing property. This is putting an end to the grab, and getting control in such a way as will bring about a better situation. The hon. Member says that it is a very poor world we are working for. I hope it is very poor from his point of view. I shall be a very happy man if it is a poor world from the point of view of hon. Members on the other side. I would like to draw attention to the twisted Conservative minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. You see what we had to face when we had Tories sitting on this Front Bench. There is not a trick or manoeuvre they were not prepared to use; the Tory mentality is always ready to deceive, to cheat and to fraud.

Mr. M'Kie: Is it in Order for the hon. Gentleman to make such defamatory references to hon. Gentlemen on these benches?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr Hubert Beaumont): "Cheat" and the other words used would not be in Order if applied to individuals.

Mr. M'Kie: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) specifically named the hon. Gentleman who represents the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) in association with his general remarks.

Mr. Gallacher: I specifically linked the hon. Gentleman with the party to which he belongs, which is notorious as a party which has cheated and defrauded the people of the country.

Sir H. Webbe: May I say that personally I do not in the least mind remarks of that kind? I have sat so long opposite the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council that I am quite used to it.

The Deputy-Chairman: Now that oil has been poured on troubled waters, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will proceed.

Mr. Gallacher: I conclude by saying that I heard many speeches made by Labour candidates, and I saw many election addresses, and one thing Labour candidates insisted on was that the people of this country should vote for a Government that would take control of property and use that property in the best interests of the people. There is no question at all about the will of the people or about the mandate they gave. This Government, representing the desires of the people, must insist on every control necessary, so that when the lads come back from the Army they will be employed, and will not have to go through what happened after the last war, when they came back and were walking about homeless and unemployed.

Mr. Turton: I hope that the people of this country will realise that the only support there is for the Home Secretary, when he says he wishes to suspend any enactment by Regulation, and to conscript the people by additional Regulations under this Bill, comes from one of the two Communist Members in the House. In the course of the Election I read speeches by members of the party which now forms the Government, and they were against conscription in certain cases. We are asking that the Bill shall not contain provision to require persons to place themselves at the disposal of His Majesty. That is conscription.
I have a volume of letters—which I know is equalled by those in the possession of every hon. Member—from men in the Services who are praying that they may be demobilised. Yet here comes our fatherly Home Secretary to the Committee asking for additional powers to conscript members of the public for the purposes of this Bill. I hope that the Home Secretary and those hon. Members who support him will look askance at the support they are receiving from the Communist Party.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Oliver: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, to leave out "in force" and to insert "made."
This Amendment goes with the succeeding one; they are of a drafting

character. It has been the practice to save existing subordinate instruments by a provision saying that they are to have effect notwithstanding the Amendment. These saving provisions were not included in the Regulations themselves but form separate articles of the Order in Council making the Amendment. It is necessary that these subordinate orders and directions, if they are still in force, should be preserved by Clause 1 to 3 of the Bill. When the Amendments are made, the Sub-section will refer to:
all orders and other instruments made under the Regulations and in force at the date when the Order in Council comes into operation.
and this will adequately describe the instruments in question.

Amendment agreed to.

Further amendment made: In page 2, line 16, after "Regulation" insert "and in force."—[Mr. Oliver.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(Power to make Defence Regulations for controlling prices.)

Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, leave out from beginning, to end of line 37, and insert:
His Majesty may by Order in Council make such.
I ask permission to have included in the discussion on this Amendment the Amendment relating to page 2, line 40, to leave out from "description," to "for" in line 41. I hope this will be for the convenience of the Committee.

The Chairman: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Would it be for the convenience of the Committee if the next three Amendments were discussed along with the present one?

Mr. Lyttelton: We do not intend to move the second Amendment standing in my name—in page 2, line 38, after "for" to insert "so."
The Amendment which I have the honour to move, and the associated Amendment, seek to effect that these Regulations shall be made by ordinary Order in Council and not under Defence Regulations. They would exclude some of the powers which have already been discussed from the ambit of this Bill if they were made by plain Orders in


Council instead of by Defence Regulations. The particular part of the Clause to which I wish to draw attention consists of the last words, which we ask the Government to omit. They are these:
Whether or not such regulations are necessary or expedient for the purposes specified in the said subsection (1).
What are the purposes specified in the said subsection? They are
to secure at fair prices a sufficiency of those essential to the wellbeing of the community or their equitable distribution; or to facilitate the readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace: or to assist the relief of suffering and the restoration and distribution of essential supplies and services in any part of H.M.'s Dominions or in foreign countries that axe in grave distress as the result of war.
These are pretty wide objectives to state in Clause 1, which the Government inherit from the Coalition Government. In Clause 2, by including the words which I have quoted, the Government are saying quite bluntly, "We wish to control prices and goods of any description, or charges for services of any description, for purposes other than to secure sufficient at fair prices, other than to facilitate the readjustment of industry and commerce, and other than to relieve suffering and famine abroad." But what can those objectives be? What are they? All we know so far is that they are not the objects set out under Clause 1; they are others, but about what they are—complete silence. As in so much connected with this Bill, we are not told what those objects are.
In the Clause as now drafted, it would be possible to control prices, or for that matter wages—because wages are frequently charges for service—for any reason at all at the unfettered will of the Government. It would be possible; it is not germane to the arument to say that it would be improbable, or that it would be unlikely, or would not happen. It would be possible to discriminate against one firm or another. Indeed, the Home Secretary in his speech on the Second Reading used these words, and I think the Lord President of the Council, who was reading from the same brief, repeated them. The Home Secretary said:
to differentiate price control according to type and quality by fixing maximum prices for particular products and particular businesses."—[Official Report, 9th October, 1945, Vol. 414, c. 122.]

If those words mean anything, they mean that the Government here seek power to go down into particular commodities and also to go down into particular firms making the same commodity. The words expressly mean that powers are taken not only to control the variety of products but also to control the product of one company or firm as against the same product made by another.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: What words are those? I am sorry I was not here when the right hon. Gentleman began.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman was not here. The words I was referring to are:
Whether or not such regulations are necessary or expedient for the purposes specified in the said sub-section (1).

Mr. Silverman: Where does he say that it is stated that the words he wishes to leave out give the Government power not merely to control goods of any description but to discriminate amongst those goods between one firm and another?

Mr. Lyttelton: In that connection I was merely quoting the words which the Home Secretary and the Lord President of the Council used.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman did not say that they were in the Section?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, I was quoting from the Home Secretary's speech on the Second Reading.
Those words mean that it will be possible to say to a partner in a firm, "We do not like your face, your private life or your politics, and so we are going to control the price which you may charge for your products while leaving your competitors free." It would be possible under these powers to say at what fee a barrister's brief should be marked, and I wonder what the Lord Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trade would have thought of those powers earlier in their lives. Of course, I am, on purpose, using far-fetched illustrations, but they are to show how far the powers could go, not to show how far they necessarily will go. The Home Secretary's defence of Clause 2 in his speech on the Second Reading, which was of a highly perfunctory character, was not relevant to


the subject of the present Amendment at all. He did not touch upon this point. He defended the present powers on the ground that previously they had powers only over manufactures as a class or types of trade as a class. He went on to use, among other words, those I have quoted. I am not suggesting that the powers will be used, or unfairly used, but only that they are there and will allow discrimination to take place. It seems to me that the powers which the Home Secretary has, to deal with specific goods, would still exist under this Clause even if the words which we ask the Government to delete were omitted.
6.30 p.m.
The Home Secretary also took the opportunity, when referring to this Clause, to mention restrictive practices, but he followed the practice himself by restricting the discussion—as his colleagues in the Government always do—on this point, to the restrictive practice of holding up prices, and did not mention those designed to withhold labour or to restrict the quality of a man's hand or brain. All these restrictive practices may be—although they by no means always are—wrong and anti-social. Where they are wrong and anti-social is where they fail to carry out one of the objectives set down in Clause 1—where they fail to secure sufficient of the essentials of life for the community at fair prices and equitable distribution.
So far we see that quite unnecessary "overcoat powers" are being taken, because restrictive practices are wrong when they defeat the object of Clause 1. The powers, as drafted, would, in effect, enable the Home Secretary to keep prices up. He can say, for example, that the Minister of Supply, in one of his State-owned factories, cannot compete with the privately-owned business, a contingency which will certainly arise before very long. He could say "You shall not sell taps or gutter at such and such a price and undercut the Ministry of Supply."
Again, hon. Members may think that I am taking a far-fetched illustration. I am doing nothing of the kind; I am only saying what could be done under the powers of this Clause, and it is open to Major Milner to call be to Order if I am outside the Clause. The Government could keep prices up, and I want to show

hon. Members that this is not a fanciful illustration. I assert that the powers exist, which at this moment are being used, for the purpose of keeping up prices which would otherwise fall, and I challenge the Government to deny that. There is no answer.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman please be specific.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Government do not know what I am referring to. That is exactly the point made by some hon. Members. Will the Home Secretary, for example, look into the matter of the price of bricks, one of the components of building? I am not saying at this moment that the fixing of minimum prices of bricks is vicious, or not done for a good reason; I am only saying that these powers are now being used by the Government. It is quite easy to follow these Regulations, but the Government themselves do not know. I think there is a good reason why there should be a minimum price for bricks, and I say that the Home Secretary can keep up prices. I know how distasteful these things may be when pointed out, but I have a difficult task to perform, and I will do it with politeness. The Home Secretary can keep prices up. That will give hon. Members an idea how wide, how almost limitless, the powers which he seeks under the Clause can be with these words in.
Again, the Home Secretary could, although I am not suggesting for a moment that he would, do very great damage to the power of collective bargaining of trade unions over the prices charged for services which are, in some cases, wages. It is absolutely no defence of this Clause to think, or believe, as I do, that he will do nothing of the kind. It is no use to be content with the words which the Lord President of the Council so adroitly used when before the House on the Second Reading. He said they were taking powers, but that it did not follow that they would use them and that hon. Members on this side of the House could rely on the Labour Government conducting themselves with good sense and discretion. To accept that kind of argument is to reduce the proceedings of this House to a farce. The argument runs: "We have a mandate and under that mandate we are entitled to take any power, but you need not worry; we shall use our power with discretion." All dis-


cussion in the Committee stage of a Bill, if we accept that argument, would be a mere waste of time, and there are many hon. Members, new to the House, who regard the work of this afternoon as a waste of time—most of it wasted by the Government.
The point broadly raised by this Clause, as now drafted, is that "overcoat powers" should be handed to the Government to do what they think fit. I notice the Home Secretary is referring to his notes, but when I say "overcoat" I am referring to this sort of words:
whether or not such Regulations are necessary or expedient for the purposes specified in the said Sub-section (1)?
We could not have a more comprehensive Clause. What the Government want is a sort of atomic blunderbuss which they can fire into the air whenever they like, but the only thing that is certain is that the slugs will end up in the face, and probably other parts of the person, of His Majesty's subjects, however privileged the reasons which prompt it. These are the very things which we in this House, and in this Committee, are here to prevent. We are here to safeguard, as far as possible and as far as necessary, while giving the Government powers for which they ask, that they shall govern without permitting licence and unlimited powers being granted to the Executive over the person and property of the individual, in just the same way as in the early days of our Constitution the faithful Commons protected the citizens from unlimited and indiscriminate interference by the Crown. [Hon. Members: "By the Tories."] The Chairman will probably say that it is going a little beyond the Clause if we get back to Magna Charta.
The Amendment, as put down, has no other meaning, and I hope the Government will accept it. The powers are very wide, indeed, and will do all—and probably more than all—that is likely to be necessary, even if the Bill has a five-years' life. The Government, as their life progresses, will have need of friends; I am not sure they do not need a few now. I am giving them an opportunity this evening of seeing that sound constitutional practice is as much their care as that of hon. Members. The Lord President of the Council has often, in my hear-

ing, made eloquent appeals to the Government when he thought that something they were doing did not accord with those principles. In making his stand for those principles, I know he was sincere, and I ask him and the Home Secretary to go over this first and very important Bill that the Government have presented to Parliament, knowing that they hold those views.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman referred to me in an aside, and said that he did not wish to accept from me any ruling as to irrelevancy. I do not venture to suggest any such ruling, and certainly would not expect him to accept one if I did. All the same, I thought he might have been interested in convincing this Committee that his arguments were really relevant to the Amendments, and my difficulty was to show how they were. The right hon. Gentleman has made a number of criticisms of the Clause. What basis he has for those criticisms I will examine in a moment, but I would like to say first of all—and I would ask him to correct me if I am mistaken—that none of the criticisms which formed most of his speech would be in any way affected if either of these Amendments was carried.

Mr. Lyttelton: The point is, that where the Government are seeking power to go out of a class and into individual types of goods, or individual manufactures, we, on this side of the House, are not contesting that point if it is with the objectives set out in Clause 1. But when Clause 2 contains completely limitless powers, then we think the Government are going too far.

Mr. Silverman: I dare say that what the right hon. Gentleman has now said has some bearing on what I said, but I must confess that I am unable to see what it is. He made a number of criticisms of the Clause. It is quite true that the Amendments that he proposes would make some difference to the Clause's provisions, but the general effect of the Clause would not be in any way different if we carried either or both of the Amendments which he moved. The powers in the Clause would still be wide powers. Whatever powers the Government have, to interfere with this or that kind of goods, would still be there. The argument that you ought not to give a Government powers merely on


their undertaking not to abuse them would still be good. All the right hon. Member would effect by his Amendments, if carried, would be that, instead of doing something by Defence Regulations, it would be done by Order in Council, and, secondly, the powers would be exercisable only for the purposes of Clause 1 of the principal Act, and not independently of these purposes. It seems to me, therefore, that the main part of his speech was directed to criticism of the Clause which his Amendments would not affect.
6.45 p.m. 
Let us look at the criticism he made. Is he really advancing it as a principle of legislation that you must never give Government powers which bad Governments could abuse? There are not any such powers. There is not any way of putting general powers into such words that a Government could use them only in suitable cases and could not use them in unsuitable cases. If that had been a proper principle of legislation, the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, which was operated throughout the war, and without which the war could not have been properly prosecuted, could never have been passed. It gave the Government during the war the widest possible powers. Any one of the Regulations could have been abused. Many hon. Members think that some of them were, but that was never regarded as being a good reason for withholding the powers. We had to be content, as the right hon. Member for Aldershot and his hon. Friends will have to be content, to watch carefully and closely the exercise of those powers by the Government and if the powers are abused to bring to the notice of the House each abuse as and when it occurs. We cannot keep the Government without powers merely because Governments can abuse powers, or because the form of words gives them the opportunity to abuse powers.
What was it that the right hon. Gentleman thought the Government might do and ought not to be allowed to do? He said they would have power to maintain prices. That is so. The whole of this legislation is to give the Government powers which, if the Government did not exercise them, would be exercised only by private interests. Monopolies make these arrangements, cartels make them;

the effect of collective bargaining can be curtailed by arrangements between employers. All sorts of arrangements about price maintenance are possible and have been carried out. The whole purpose of this legislation is to give the Government counter powers so that in this period the community may be protected.
The only other point I want to deal with is the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman made that there is something in this Clause which would give the Government power to discriminate between individuals or firms offering the same description of services or manufacturing the same description of goods. I ventured to ask the right hon. Gentleman where he found such a power in the Clause and he replied by quoting a speech by the Minister. The whole point of his argument was that Ministers' speeches have nothing to do with it, and that what matters is the wording in the Bill. I ask him again where there is in the Clause any power to discriminate between persons? The words are quite clear:
As appear to him to be necessary or expedient for controlling the prices to be charged for goods of any description or the charges to be made for services of any description.
I should have thought that was conclusive. What the Clause requires is quite clear; it is that the Government should class the description of goods or services the price of or charge for which it wishes to control, and then control the price of or charge for goods or services of that description. There is no discrimination between the goods of one manufacturer and those of another. As long as they are goods of the same description, the Regulation will cover all of them.

Mr. Lyttelton: Does the Home Secretary agree with the interpretation of this Clause now being given by the hon. Member?

Mr. Ede: This is not Question Time. I hope to speak later.

Mr. Silverman: I shall be interested in the answer, although I still think that the answer would be irrelevant to this discussion. As has been said time and again by hon. Members opposite, what matters is not what the Minister says. It is not for the Minister to interpret Acts of Parliament. Therefore, it is quite irrelevant for the right hon. Gentleman to ask


whether the Home Secretary agrees with my interpretation. I have given my interpretation. It may be quite wrong. What we have to look at is the words in the Bill and not rely on anybody's interpretation. If words have to be interpreted, they will be interpreted in the courts. It seems to me to be plain, and if the Government do not intend the results to be as I have said, they ought to look at the wording again. I think the meaning of the words is that the Government can control the price of goods and the charges for services according to their description. If the Government do not mean that, they ought to change the wording, but until they change it, the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) has no ground for complaint because the things he fears are not to be found in the Clause.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I am in some difficulty about this Clause, with or without the Amendment. The Clause gives almost unlimited powers. The last two lines of Sub-section (1) of the Clause which the Amendment seeks to remove give unlimited powers for unlimited purposes. I understand that is the point to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) was directing his argument when he pleaded, not that the Clause should be dispensed with, but that the unlimited powers in the last two lines should be dispensed with. If one takes the view that governments are inevitably and necessarily good, there is a tremendous argument for giving them all power and for not restricting them by the last two lines or any other lines of the Clause. There are people who hold that governments are inevitably good, and one government introduced a Bill in the Reichstag some years ago to give the government all powers in all directions for a period of four years. If anybody starts with that assumption, that may be the logical conclusion of the assumption; but if one starts with my assumption, that government is not a good thing but a necessary evil only to be tolerated as the price of avoiding still worse evils, then one must look carefully at the powers one is asked to give and one must bear in mind, first, that governments always ask for more powers than they need, and, secondly, that they always exercise more powers than they get. I have seen things happen under

the Defence Regulations—I have seen things happen to me under those Regulations—which I am perfectly certain were never within the contemplation of the House at the time the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act was passed. I am certain that experience can be matched by many other hon. Members and by many institutions in the country.
The last two lines of the Sub-section remind me of the South Sea Bubble. It will be remembered that in the early part of the 18th century a wave of speculation spread over the country and all kinds of projects were launched for all sorts of purposes, but there was one which attracted me when I read about it, and that was a company for the exploitation of a purpose too secret to be disclosed. All I ask—and I ask it as an innocent inquirer and not as an opponent of the Government—is this. I am prepared to give them all the powers at a time of crisis which they can convince me are genuinely necessary for the good of the people of this country, but I am not prepared to give them a bit more. They have got to demonstrate their case. When they say:
whether or not such Regulations are necessary or expedient for the purposes specified in the said Sub-section (1)",
there can only be one implication, that they have in mind purposes other than the purposes specified in Sub-section (1). If they do not mean that, then English does not mean anything. All I ask, as a simple and humble inquirer of the fountain of truth, the Front Bench, is this: what are the other purposes that they have in mind? Will they please tell us what they are? Will they justify the request for powers to deal with them? In short, will they take us into their confidence and not ask us to give them a blank cheque? But there is only one end of blank cheques to the Government, and that is bankruptcy for the rest of us. Therefore, I ask the Home Secretary to tell us what are those purposes and try to convince us that the very wide powers in Clause 2, in addition to those in Clause 11, are necessary for the service of these purposes which so far have been concealed from the Committee.

Mr. Ede: I am quite sure that the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), when he alluded to my ingenuousness last Tuesday, was speaking with perfect


sincerity, and he has put me under a very severe temptation to-night. If I were as ingenuous as he thinks I am, I would accept the first of these Amendments. For what does it do? It enables Regulations to be made for five years instead of limiting the period during which they can be made to the period between now and 24th February next. That, of course, is a temptation which, after the last speech, I am quite sure the Committee will realise, is a very difficult one for me to resist. But I realise that was not by any means the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore, I give him the assurance that, whatever alterations we may make in this Clause, we will not make the first Amendment that he wants.
7 p.m.
I gather that the first objection is one of nomenclature. The Opposition rather feels that it would be a good thing if we could find some other name than Defence Regulations for these Regulations that will be made under the Bill as it is drafted. I admit that that is very attractive. We ourselves would, in fact, like to do it but it involves us in some difficulties in having at certain periods of time two separate sets of Regulations called by different names. As my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said, when he wound up the Debate last Tuesday, that is a point that we have in mind and we will see if it is possible to meet it without undue administrative difficulties.
When we come to the other points, which were the main objections of the right hon. Member for Aldershot that induced him to put down these Amendments, we are handicapped very much at present, as the Coalition Government were, in that for one class or description of goods we can fix only one price. Take a class of goods obviously as variable in quality and range as women's frocks. It is absurd to be in the position where one can only fix one maximum price for women's frocks. We desire in similar matters, where there are obvious grades that can reasonably be distinguished, to have the power to fix maximum prices for different grades for the same kind of commodity. I am sure that everyone in the Committee would say that it would be reasonable. If we do not do

that, we probably fix a maximum price that is too low for some purposes and much too high for other purposes. There is, of course, a tendency for the maximum price to become also in some cases, where it ought not to become, the minimum price. That is the kind of thing that I gather the Committee would wish us to avoid.
With regard to the last three lines which have caused a great deal of the argument and give rise I think to the main difference between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, those words are put in there to deal with the prospect of inflation that might be caused by excessive prices being charged for non-essential goods at a time when, obviously, it as admitted there is a great pent-up spending power in the nation. Certain things are controlled in price, but inflation might well be caused by excessive spending on some of the non-essential goods. I have had brought to my notice, as an illustration of the way in which prices have risen unexpectedly in certain ways, the recent increase in fees—and the justifiable increase in many cases—in secondary schools. There is a great pent-up spending power at the moment in the working classes and, as in the last war, one of the ways in which they have endeavoured to use that spending power has been in getting a better standard of education for their children. Public schools have more clients than usual, the schools below them in social standard have also more pupils, and this has been used by some proprietors of schools unnecessarily to increase fees and take advantage of the present markets. I am not suggesting that this clause would be used to control school fees, but I give it as an example of the way in which the most extraordinary things rise in price, when spending is restricted over a certain area and then tends to flow into some other channel quite unexpectedly.

Mr. Marlowe: Since the right hon. Gentleman has given an example of a case in which it will not be used, can he give an example of a case in which it will be used?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir, and I say frankly that the ingenuity of people who want to make money quickly is so great that I never attempt to keep pace with it myself, and I carefully avoid their company.

Sir H. Webbe: Does the right hon. Gentleman include, in the category of those who want to make money quickly, those public schools which, in order to make both ends meet, have to put up fees to meet food costs and so on?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir, not those, but there are some others. I was careful not to make any general accusation, but the example I chose was one that was well justified. We feel that the words to which the right hon. Gentleman objects give us the power for which we ask. I am sensible that there is misgiving in the Committee, as was very well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), that the words may be, in fact, too wide and might be used for purposes other than those I have mentioned to the Committee. I agree that the Committee is entitled to feel that this Clause when it is passed shall not go beyond what the Government want to do. I have given the reasons why I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, but I will undertake between now and the Report stage of the Bill to have this Clause very carefully examined to see that we get the powers we want, and, if possible, that we get them in terms that shall be unmistakable. Any Amendments to secure that, if they are necessary, shall be placed on; the Paper so that hon. Members shall have an opportunity of studying them before the next stage of the Bill.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am sure that the Committee will be relieved to hear that at last some compunction has forced its way into the steel armour of the right hon. Gentleman and that he is about to reconsider this curious Clause. We in this Committee are all anxious to help and not to delay any further than is necessary the proceedings of the Committee. We shall look with gleeful anticipation to see what form the second thoughts of the right hon. Gentleman take. I hope that his reconsideration of this matter will not proceed on the lines of some of the arguments that he has already addressed to the Committee. I would ask him this question, and it is one which I would like him to have prominently before him when reconsidering this matter. What does he want to do under this Clause in its present or its amended form that he cannot at present do under the Prices of Goods Act?

Mr. Ede: That is precisely the difficulty with regard to the women's frocks.

Mr. Morrison: I gather that point but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the present legislation—the Prices of Goods Act—does enable him to go into immense detail. I have before me the Goods and Services (Prices Control) Order dealing with domestic pottery, and, taking it at random, I find that there are 20 different pie-dishes mentioned, each in four columns and different prices for each. There seems to be no reason against it. When I look at the one on wool yarns, they are all meticulously described in the Order and the tradesman, who has to master the immense complexities and particularisation of all these Orders, has no reason to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are deficient in power to make a complete and minute schedule of prices. We shall look forward to this. I would not like to deceive the right hon. Gentleman or the Committee, but the Clause in its present form will never do unless we abandon altogether the control of the House of Commons over legislation. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) shakes his head but I heard the argument which he addressed to us, and I beg him and the Committee to look at the implications of what he said. He said, and I agree with him, that it would be impossible to frame legislation which a bad Government could not abuse. That is probably true, but to carry that argument to the extent to which the hon. Member pushed it, would be to abandon all control of Parliament over legislation.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: How far does the right hon. Gentleman suggest I did that? All I said was that because power could be abused, was not an argument in itself for withholding it.

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that that puts the position as I would put it to the Committee. A bad Executive can abuse any powers. I am not suggesting that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench at this early stage of their career possess that turpitude of character that would be proper if they were to abuse their powers. I am not doing that, but I do say that it is the duty of the House, whether sitting as the House or in Committee, to make it as difficult as possible for Governments to abuse the legislative powers with which we entrust them, and it is on that basis


that we should examine the amended version of the Clause now before us. I can say that there are many of us on this side of the Committee, and probably many anxious minds on the benches behind the right hon. Gentleman, who will recall the dramatic reminder given by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown) about the Parliament that voted complete power to its Government for five years. I wish the right hon. Gentleman every success in his reconsideration of this difficult matter. We view the Government's difficulties with sympathy, but we do want to know, and if they will only be frank with us and tell us why they want these powers, we shall not make any trouble. In view of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, to leave out Subsection (2).
This Amendment raises a very short point, which I am sure the Home Secretary will consider at the same time as he is considering the proposed Amendment to Sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) would appear unnecessary if you retain power to make Orders under Defence Regulations. This is rather, in part, consequential upon the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), and I ask the Home Secretary to consider this and the next Amendment—in page 3, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (3)—at the same time as he is considering that to Sub-section (1).

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Ingenuousness is now beginning to settle on the other side of the Committee. It is necessary for us to have Sub-section (2). Of course, some of the penal provisions in the Acts to which reference has been made are quite inadequate for some of the offences that might be committed, and it may be the desire to impose a minimum fine at least equal to the profit resulting from the commission of the offence. I recognise that the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (3) is largely consequential upon the Amendment which has just been withdrawn, and

I will undertake that it will be considered with the previous Amendments. I cannot accept the Amendment now before the Committee.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(Revocation and variation of Defence Regulations having effect under this Act.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, after "revoke," insert "in whole or in part."
I think the Commitee will recognise that this Amendment will be of some assistance, both to the Government and to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in line 11, after "of," insert "section one of."
This is obviously a drafting Amendment.

Earl Winterton: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "obviously drafting"? It is as obscure as it was in the beginning.

Mr. Ede: I should not like to say that. The Clause alludes to "subsection (1) of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act," and it means, quite obviously, Sub-section (1) of some Section of that Act. As a matter of fact, it is Sub-section (1) of Section 1. It is the first Sub-section of the Measure, although this is not the usual way of alluding to it.

Earl Winterton: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman a very simple question. I ask him to say if it is or is not a misprint.

Mr. Ede: I do not think it is a misprint. It might have been a mis-typing by the person who typed the typescript from which the Bill was printed. It is an error in the Bill, and I am sorry that it should have taken such a long time to put right.

Captain Crookshank: Could we call it a mistake?

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(Parliamentary control over Defence Regulations and orders and other instruments made there under. 56 &amp; 57 Viet. c. 66.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, after "Act," insert:
or which is or is deemed to be a statutory rule to which the Rules Publication Act (Northern Ireland), 1925, applies.
The purpose of this Amendment is to preserve the existing system under which Orders and other instruments made by Government Departments in Northern Ireland under Defence Regulations continue to be treated as Statutory Rules and Orders of Northern Ireland. Under Defence Regulation 102A, all Orders made by the Government of Northern Ireland, or any Department of that Government, are deemed to be Statutory Rules to which the Rules Publication Act (Northern Ireland), 1925, applies. If the Amendment is not made, the probable effect would be that this provision would have to be revoked as repugnant to Clause 4, and the convenient practice now established would have to be abandoned. It also makes it clear that the instruments have to be laid before Parliament. I may say that I have had negotiations with the Government of Northern Ireland and they are agreed upon the form of words.

Earl Winterton: May I ask another question, as I am rather interested in the drafting of Bills? Would it be unfair to assume, in the case of this Amendment and of further Amendments to be moved, that the Government did not satisfy themselves through the usual channels how far agreement might be expected, but that they now have satisfied themselves?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: There are two questions which I should like to ask. The first is whether there is a Scrutiny Committee sitting on this, either in Northern Ireland or here? When these Orders lie on the Table in Northern Ireland, will it be at exactly the same time as the Orders are laid here?

Mr. Ede: This part of the Bill was drafted by the Coalition Government. They appear to have omitted to consult Northern Ireland.

Earl Winterton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer my question?

Mr. Ede: I express my regret that I assumed too readily that the Bills of the Coalition Government were correct in all respects; I ought to have consulted Northern Ireland before this Bill was introduced.

Earl Winterton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman another question? I am sure he will have no objection to answering it. I did not take any particular interest in the late Government. Am I right in assuming that he was a member of the Coalition Government?

Mr. Ede: Yes, but may I say that I was not engaged at any stage in the discussions on this Bill.

Earl Winterton: Was the right hon. Gentleman a Cabinet Minister?

Mr. Ede: I was not a Cabinet Minister but I accept responsibility and, on behalf of the Coalition Government—

Mr. Turton: Was not the name of the Lord President of the Council on the back of the Bill?

Mr. Ede: Yes, there were three Tory Members' names, and two Labour on the back of it. If hon. Members want to go into that kind of thing—[Interruption].

Mr. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman started it.

Mr. Ede: With regard to the points put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) these Orders have to be laid on the Table here and in the Northern Ireland House of Commons. Whether they have the same procedure there as we do, I do not know. Of course they are a self-governing community, having their own Standing Orders, but a Northern Ireland Order attracts in this House all the attention by the Scrutinising Committee and by the House itself that the Orders which apply to Great Britain attract. I am sorry I cannot answer my hon. Friend about the procedure in the Northern Ireland Parliament.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew (Ayr and Bute, Northern): There are two small points which I would like to put to the Home Secretary on this Clause. They


deal not with the Defence Regulation made under the Emergency Powers Act, but with orders made under the Defence Regulations which are commonly called "the grand-children." The right hon. Gentleman knows what I mean. The points I think are quite simple but they need to be clarified. The first is: What is the meaning of Orders determined to be "of the nature of a public act" in line 28? Presumably it means that merely Local Orders will not have to be laid. I have no quarrel with that, but the Select Committee of Statutory Orders does see local Orders—for instance, Sunday Cinematograph Orders, or Orders setting up Joint Local Boards. However, it does not find much in them and, after all, the Local Orders are usually made on the application or with the consent of the locality. Incidentally, who does the determining? According to the Regulations of 1894 the rule-making authority says whether it thinks its rules are general or local, and presumably the editor of the Statutory Rules and Orders—through whose office they pass, makes the decision. The system seems to work satisfactorily in practice and has had over 50 years to crystallise itself. The Select Committee have no complaints but we would like to know who determines.
The second point is a constitutional one. Some of these "grand-children" of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act deal with Northern Ireland and some of these are actually made by authorities in Belfast—the Governor of Northern Ireland or some Northern Ireland Department—under powers which can be delegated by Departments in Whitehall. We have no quarrel with that but it introduces a problem of supervision. Under the constitution of Northern Ireland contained in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the Belfast Government cannot deal with such matters as the Defence of the Realm. Well then, are these grand-children of the Act, when made in Belfast, Statutory Rules and Orders in the United Kingdom series, or Statutory Rules and Orders of Northern Ireland covered by the Northern Ireland Rules Publication Act? The answer is in paragraph 2 of the Defence Regulation 102A—they are to be deemed Statutory Rules and Orders of Northern Ireland although they deal with a subject on which

the Belfast Government cannot make laws. The Orders concern only Northern Ireland and may as well be published there but what happens to their Parliamentary supervision? Being Statutory Rules and Orders of Northern Ireland they do not come before our Select Committee here; being outside the powers of the Northern Ireland Parliament how can they be challenged in the Northern Ireland Parliament? Our Select Committee has its hands pretty full and is not clamouring for more and more work. I do not suggest that these Northern Ireland grand-children should come to our Committee to be scrutinised, but how does the matter stand? I shall be obliged if the Home Secretary can clarify these two points because they are of some importance.

Mr. Ede: The decision as to whether an Order is a local or a general Order is made by the Treasury in consultation with Mr. Speaker and the Lord Chancellor. That appears to be the practice which has been followed hitherto and I see no reason for departing from it at the present time. With regard to the future, now that the "grand-children"—as the hon. and gallant Member calls these Orders which are made under Regulations—where they relate to Northern Ireland are to be placed before his Committee, and their supervision will be in the charge of the Committee of which he is a Member. I do not think there is any other way in which they can be properly looked after because, as he said, some of them are outside the competence of the Northern Ireland legislature and therefore, this legislature being the only one within whose competence they are, I think we must accept responsibility for them.

Sir Ronald Ross: This, I agree, is a very difficult situation. Northern Ireland is the only federalised part of the United Kingdom and a position where you have these Defence of the Realm Regulations, and kindred matters, is obviously a very complicated one, which affects not only the Parliament of Northern Ireland. I assume that in these matters the Ministers in Northern Ireland in enforcing these Orders would be exercising delegated authority over the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and would not be acting so much as Ministers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland as


agents of the Home Secretary here. As regards that matter, Northern Ireland is recognised by this Act—which was passed as everybody should know on no request of ours—as being distinguishable in having local considerations which are not the same as those in this country. May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman, in dealing with these Orders, will consult the appropriate Ministers of the Northern Ireland Government before taking action and, if he can, will act in concert? May I take it that the same consultation and the same sympathy with the particular views and considerations of Northern Ireland will be extended in the future as in the past?

Mr. Ede: I am glad to give that assurance. Since I have been in office I have had some very pleasant conversations with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and with some of the Ministers in his Cabinet. I am arranging that they shall be consulted in the formative stage with regard to this and similar matters, and I will endeavour to meet their wishes. Of course, it must be understood there are occasions when the final responsibility is mine, and I may have to take a decision, after listening to what they have to say, that may not be fully in accordance with what they would like. But even where the responsibility falls quite definitely on me I shall always endeavour to ascertain what their legitimate views are in regard to those things which enter their province.

7.30 p.m.

Sir C. MacAndrew: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, which is very clear, but to say that what he has done will mean that the Select Committee will not be allowed to report to the House unless we send for a memorandum from the Department concerned which will mean, in turn, that we might have to send across to Ireland for people to come here if we should require them to do so.

Mr. Ede: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not wish me to put him into a position where he could make a report without hearing what the other side had to say.

Sir C. MacAndrew: I was not asking for that. But it will mean sending to Northern Ireland for people to come

here to give evidence if there is anything on which we might like clarification.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Application of principal Acts and effect of their expiry, and adaptation of other enactments.)

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 4, line 43, leave out Sub-section (5).
This innocuous looking Sub-section is really dynamite. I will repeat it, in case any Member here has not got a copy of the Bill. It says:
For the purpose of the requisitioned of Land and War Works Act, 1945, the expression" war period" shall include any period after the expiry of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, during which this Act is in force.
The words, "war period," do not occur in this Act. They refer to Section 59 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945. What this means is that wherever the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act says, "war period," that means a term of five years. I am afraid that I shall have to go at some length into the effect of this small Sub-section upon the different provisions of the Requisition of Land and War Works Act, because it alters completely the Act that was passed only a few months ago, an Act which was supported by Members of the present Government. In effect, it would hold up the development of industry, agriculture and planning in Britain. Under Section 5 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, wherever there are Government works on any land a Government Department can decide to acquire the land or any adjacent land providing they serve notice that will now be within seven years of the passing of this Bill, that is, 1952. By a later Clause in this Bill power is given to extend the period by one year more, to 1953. That will mean that for seven years a man who has Government war works on his property will be in a state of complete uncertainty.
This matter was discussed by the Select Committee on National Expenditure on 8th March. I see on the Front Bench and other benches distinguished supporters of the present Government who took part in the deliberations of that Select Committee and who supported their Second Report, which dealt with the release of


requisitioned land and buildings. Paragraph 36 of that Report says:
Your Committee has been impressed by the difficulties confronting Departments in reaching decisions over post-war requirements. They appreciate that it is impossible to work out in detail plans for camps, training grounds, airfields and other establishments which must be retained. Your Committee consider that the time has now come when a definite decision should be made which would enable Departments to determine…which property they will have to acquire and which they will eventually be able to release. This will allow plans to be made for industrial or agricultural production, for housing, or for town and country planning schemes, in respect of property which is now held under requisition.
That is the considered opinion of an all-party Committee of this House on this problem. Following that Committee, the House said that notice must be given within two years after the end of the war. The present Bill—I hope and believe that there is some error of drafting—will extend that period for seven years, until 1952. At that time I myself thought that two years from the end of the war was too long, and I supported a plea that all these matters should be wound up within one year of the end of the war. Also at that time the present Minister of Health, who was sitting where I am standing to-day, gave us his views on this problem. He said:
I believe that it is the worst possible situation for individuals, owners of property or no property to have no practical future before them, knowing that at any moment the Government may step in and do something about which they cannot make the slightest possible conjecture. That is a ridiculous situation, because it substitutes caprice for injustice."—[Official Report, 19th April, 1945; Vol. 410, c. 526.]
He went on to say that in his view two years was not an unreasonable time. Of course, circumstances have altered. The right hon. Gentleman now has the responsibility and cares of Government office, directed by Government officials. His two years is now altered to seven years. Let me give the Committee a few illustrations of what will be affected. Small garages, by the concentration of industries, have been sites of Government work, where the Government have installed machinery. Those garages which want to be decontrolled will not know until 1952 whether they are to have independence or not. Owners of land adjacent to Government factories which

belong to another industrial undertaking want to know where they are in connection with post-war development. That illustration will occur in every area of development in the country. There are 600 airfields, the vast majority of which are on good agricultural land. Unless this Subsection is deleted those airfields will be sterilised until 1952, and those who were on that Select Committee will know the dangers that are implied in that fact. The tentacles of the Air Ministry will be upon those airfields. There are 600,000 acres of land and 80,000 buildings still requisitioned by the War Department.
Let us take a few illustrations of common land. Marlborough Common has a hospital upon it, and people will not be able to know the future of that common until 1952 unless this Clause is altered. Then there is Blackheath Common, where you have a lorry park. Dartford Heath will continue to have a camp and a sewage farm. That is the effect of the sentence of five years' additional imprisonment under Section 5 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act. Under Section 6, where land has been damaged by Government war use, the Government Department will not have to decide whether they are going to acquire it and rehabilitate it until seven years from the passing of this Act.
Many of us on these Benches think the Government are too slow in demobilising the men from the Services. It is the same sort of inaction that is going to hold the land that has been damaged by war use—the land that is scarred from war from being restored. Directly you make that war period five years, therefore giving them the power to acquire seven years, you are going to hold up this restoration of the land of England. I do not believe there can be any party division on the unfortunate result of Section 6to alter the war period under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act. Why delay the decision? Two years is long enough. Why delay it for another five years on land used as bombing ranges and tank traps? We have all seen them in the course of our service. We have had to help make these battle scars, and those of us who have made them are only too anxious to get them removed and England restored, There are great acres of concrete lying all over the surface of fertile England.
Let me turn to Section 15. I am sorry the Home Secretary is not in the House, because he has always had a very great interest in rights of way and highways. I know the Parliamentary Secretary will convey any remarks I may make on Section 15 to him. Under Section 15 of this Act, the Minister of War Transport can wait seven years from the passing of this Bill until 1952 before he decides to stop up permanently a highway that has been temporarily closed. Let me take with this Section, Section 21, which is the parallel Section. Under that Section, every Order made under the Defence Regulations for stopping up and diverting a highway shall continue in force for seven years from the passing of this Bill, notwithstanding the stopping up or diversion of the highway if no longer required for war purposes. That sentence of seven years to me is terribly hard.
7.45 p.m.
I have in my constituency aerodromes which were placed there in order to see that Germany has been well and truly bombed. The result is that my constituents have given up their rights of way and free passage. When I came back to my constituency, after an interval at the war, I was dashing to a meeting and suddenly found myself in the middle of an aerodrome-runway with a giant bomber coming in to land. That road had been closed, I was late for my meeting, and I did not realise it in a foggy night. Rights of way and public highways have been stopped up for war purposes, and it is very difficult to get a Government Department to release them. The two years' sentence will become seven years. On Section 15, during the Report stage on 30th May, 1945, the right hon. Gentleman, the present Home Secretary, had something to say. I should like to quote what he said on that occasion:
I think the point that has been raised is one of great importance—this question of the reopening of highways that have been closed, some of them important highways linking up small towns and villages. I hope that what the Parliamentary Secretary has said with regard to the attitude of his Minister will, in fact, be carried out. I am very nervous about the effects of the war on highway law generally. Previously there was a very different method of dealing with the closing and diversion of highways. I hope…that we are to get back very shortly to the time when there will only be the way that existed before the war for diverting and closing highways, namely, the action of justices in Quarter Sessions, a special Act of Parliament or a town planning

scheme. I think the third method was a very disastrous innovation, and I hope we are not to have any further extension of the way in which the public can be inconvenienced by the closing of ancient highways."—[Official Report, 30th May, 1945; Vol. 411, c. 284.]
In October the same right hon. Gentleman comes to the House and what does he do? He wants to extend "this dangerous innovation" from two years to seven years and possibly eight. I am not surprised at this. Right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches before the Election made very different promises and assurances that now have gone with the wind of success.
I now turn to the next Section—Section 26. Under that Section, which is a local authorities provision, the local authority can acquire any land for their purposes which they have held during the war, if they give notice within seven years until 1952. The types of case that is dealt with under Section 26 are those premises which, hon. Members will recollect, have been used for the storage of civil defence reserves. In my constituency, and I expect in others, they are badly required for civil production in order to help industry. They also deal with the offices of the regional commissioners. If the decision whether these are to be retained by the local authority is going to be delayed until 1952, it is going to make that large area of land and buildings unobtainable to Britain for restarting business until that date.
Let me quote the other three Sections which are affected—and some of them are even more important than those I have mentioned. Under Section 28, any Government Department will be able to retain possession of requisitioned property for a further seven years from the passing of this Bill. I hear hon. Members, representing constituencies where there are hotels and dwelling houses, demanding that the land for these hotels and dwelling houses should be derequisitioned. I think the Government have been very slow in derequisitioning property. The encouragement you are giving by this Sub-section is to say that instead of two years, which was given by the Government presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), you are to have seven years, or, if possible, eight. That has been an awkward fact in connection with that Section. In Sub-section (3) you have power to give


a Government Department authority to authorise the taking of water. That power will be extended for another seven years. I find that that power is already seriously endangering rural water supplies. In many parts of the country water has been extracted from the local authority statutory undertakings for the purpose of property requisitioned by Government Departments, for instance, aerodromes. There is a great shortage of water as a result. Many of the farmers and farm workers are having to go without water because there is this requisitioning of water resources. What is the justification for that requisitioning to be extended another seven years?
Section 29 gave the Government two years in which they must remove all the clutter and mess which they have made on requisitioned property. This Bill will extend that two years to seven years. The point I really wish to press is this: This Sub-section amending the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act is not dealing with something about which we have been talking in the rest of the discussion to-day; it is slowing up the whole process of restoring Britain after the war. We have a big job to do in that respect. Why when this Government come into power is that two years suddenly extended to seven years? The first time when this proposal was made was when this Bill was introduced by the Home Secretary. I never heard it suggested, and I took part in all the Debates on the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, that the Government should keep on requisitioned land for seven years all that clutter and debris. If hon. Members who represent the party opposite felt like that then why did they not move it at that time? Now they have got into power, having had this great success, they try to suggest that this clutter and debris should remain for seven years, and that no adequate steps be taken to restore the land until the completion of that time.
I wish to mention just one other Section which affects my constituents. Section 33 will give to Government Departments until 1952 the power to acquire easements over or rights restrictive of the user of any land. I do not see the Minister of Town and Country Planning on the Government Front Bench. That is unfortunate because this will seriously affect

all planning schemes in Britain. It will also affect housing schemes. Let me give one concrete example.

The Chairman (Major Milner): I am sorry to interrupt but the hon. Gentleman has already given quite a number of examples, and it is impossible for him to carry on in that way—he might go on ad infinitum. I hope he will now confine himself to the Amendment and not give a further number of examples.

Mr. Turton: I ask your help on this matter, Major Milner. This is legislation by reference and is amending the definition of another Act. It has always been my understanding that on such an occasion it is possible to find out how this new definition will affect the different Sections of that Act. Normally this should be done, I suggest, by a new Bill in which there would be a number of Clauses extending the power over these separate Sections. As the Government have decided to effect that by means of legislation by reference surely it is in Order for me to point out the effect on different Sections of that Act?

The Chairman: The question is one of degree. The hon. Member has given a great many cases and quoted several Sections, and there comes a point when it would be an abuse of the Rules of Debate for him to continue to do so. I do not say that he has reached that point yet, but I hope he will not continue unduly towards it.

Mr. Turton: On that point of Order, with great respect, I was giving six different Sections affected by this Subsection. Not every Section of that Act is affected. Fortunately Section 33 is the last. If I am restrained from mentioning town and country planning, I shall, of course, abstain, but with great regret.

The Chairman: I trust the hon. Member will not carry his illustration too far.

Mr. Turton: I gather from what you say, Major Milner, that I may continue to deal with the effect on Section 33. I will give this illustration: A local authority in my constituency has submitted to the Minister of Health a plan for rebuilding an area. Under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act the Air Ministry are objecting to that new housing scheme on the ground that they want restrictive rights


of user over this area, which does not belong to them and which is, in fact, scheduled as a building scheme for residential property in the interim development scheme. We understood that that restriction could, at its worst, last for only two years. If this Bill is passed the local authority, the Flaxton Rural District Council, will be prevented from building on that land until 1952. Therefore the whole of the post-war housing plan in that part of the suburbs of York will be delayed by the Government action on this Amendment. I do not want to labour that point any more. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear"]. That is my constituency. I feel strongly about it. I am quite sure that if hon. Gentlemen go to their constituencies they will find that their own housing development schemes will be equally affected by Section 33. There is my interpretation of this Sub-section. Let me now turn to the interpretation of the Lord President of the Council.
During the Second Reading Debate last week he said:
Clause 5…is simply a consequence of the intended duration of requisitioning powers under this Bill. The Requisitioned Land and War Works Act gives an opportunity to requisitioning authorities to acquire requisitioned land after the properties are given up during a period not exceeding two years, while they negotiate and so on. If the requisitioning powers go on for five years after the Emergency Powers Act expires, the opportunity is postponed until then. Really it is desirable to have these powers in the field of requisitioning because they are related to the general economic powers of the Bill which would be deficient if the powers of requisitioning were not tidied up."—[Official Report, 9th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 173.]
Because my explanation is so different from that of the Lord President of the Council I have gone at length into the effect of this Sub-section. This is not tidying up; it is delaying the matter. This Sub-section will not be confined to new regulations that are brought in under Clause 1 or Clause 2 of this Bill; it will extend to the whole gamut of regulations that are still in operation by the year 1950. For these reasons I hope that the Committee will reject this Sub-section. I appeal not only to hon. Gentlemen who sit on this side of the Committee, but to hon. Gentlemen in all quarters. This is no party question.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member is interested in the landlords.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I had better not quote all my memories or I shall be pulled up, but I do remember how the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) showed his dislike of landowners. I believe the reason the Sub-section is in the Bill is this. The civil servants and Service chiefs have said to the Government, "We want more time than we were given under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act. Two years is not enough. We have all these great decisions to take on derequisitioning. Give us seven years." I believe that the Government have bowed to the Civil Service and Service chiefs, not for the first time. If the Bill is passed in this form the country will condemn the surrender of the Government to these civil servants. We want to see England tidied up, and for those reasons I ask that this Sub-section be deleted.

Mr. York: My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has dealt in some detail with this complicated matter, and I very much regret that the composition of this Committee is different from that which originally dealt with the matter, not for the reason that hon. Gentlemen opposite perhaps think, but because there are so many new hon. Members who are not aware of the extreme labour which was put into making that Act a workable and reasonable Measure. It is with some regret that I now find the Committee taking further time in trying to safeguard the rights of the people of this country against the encroachments of the Executive.
I did think after the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill became law, that we had argued for the last time on the question of finalities. If I remember right, we had long and wordy arguments on the subject of contiguous and adjacent land. We did, however, manage to obtain great concessions from the Government on that issue. Now the whole of that argument is re-opened. The owner of that contiguous or adjacent land is as much in the dark as to the future development of that land, be it for common, factory or farm, as he was at that time of the passing of that Act. It is quite impossible to see proper developments, particularly in agriculture, if we are going to have the menace of seven years of uncertainty while Government Departments make up their minds. As I understand this Sub-


section, if a farmer or a land-owner wishes to renovate his farm building which is in a spot which may be taken over as contiguous or convenient land nearby a Government factory or perhaps an airfield, that owner will be absolutely unable to demand a decision from the Government Department concerned for seven years. I had a small but gratifying success this morning. For over two years I have been badgering the Ministry of Agriculture to produce a Report on farm buildings, and at long last that Report is in the hands of the printers. I had hoped that would be the signal for a great drive on the part of the agricultural community to plan for those modernised or new farm buildings which would go up in our countryside during the next few years. In all cases where requisitioned land is involved, and in all cases where contiguous or adjacent land to that farm land is under requisition, there will be no finality and no certainty as to what is going to happen to that land until 1952.
Now that the Home Secretary is in his place I can, perhaps, say to him what he missed—those wise words from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. He takes a great interest in highways. Under this scheme, Government Departments, who are notoriously slow in making up their minds, are now being given a further five years before they are forced by Act of Parliament to decide whether or not permanently to stop up a highway. There is in my own district a particular aerodrome which stops up not only an ancient Roman road but the egress from one end of the village. That aerodrome, rumour has it, is not going to be used in the future; it is too near civilisation, or whatever the reason may be. In regard to the highways which are stopped up by that aerodrome, we shall have to wait for anything up to seven years before those highways must be unstopped or permanently kept closed. I ask the Home Secretary to realise that we put up a tremendous fight on the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act for two main purposes. The first was to restore the land of Britain as quickly as possible. The second was to limit the time during which Government Departments could make up their minds. If this Sub-section goes through in this Bill the whole of the work which we did under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act is undone.
For those reasons I ask the Home Secretary to give us finality in these matters and to delete from this Clause the offending Sub-section. Why bring it into the Clause at all? There are all the safeguards which the Government can possibly need. I ask him to withdraw this Clause and see that the work with which he sympathises, as hon. Members did during the discussions on the Requisitioned Land Bill, is not brought to naught.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I must say that we have a certain amount of sympathy with the points put by the two hon. Members who have spoken on this Amendment. If we had thought for one moment that all the fears which they have voiced were likely to materialise there would be a good deal to be said for accepting their Amendment. It is true that if this Sub-section is kept in the Bill it will be possible for some of the land which has been acquired to be kept for a period of at least seven years, but so far as the Government are concerned, although the power is there we have every hope that the Service Departments will, long before then, have decided what they want to do with particular pieces of land that have been acquired. I therefore have to ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, although I would add that, perhaps when we come to the Report stage, if it is possible to find a saving form of words, the Government will be only too pleased to accept them, particularly as—and I shall mention it in a moment—we shall have to move a further Amendment on Report for reasons which I will give.
What is it that the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, does? It was passed, as we have been told by hon. and gallant Members, as recently as last Session. It provides that a Government Department or a local authority may acquire land on which work has been done by a Government Department or a local authority during the war period. I would remind the Committee that this Subsection deals with the continuance of the "war period" as laid down in the 1945 Act. The Government, or a local authority, having acquired land and having done work on that land, are entitled to continue in possession, provided that the process of acquisition, if it intends to acquire, begins within a period of two years from the end of the war period. This


means that both Government Departments and local authorities, if they remain in possession, have up to two years to make up their minds. Great play has been made this afternoon by the two hon. and gallant Members, that the period is to be extended by this Bill, by at least another five years. That is true, but, as I have already said, we have no desire to give Departments all this extra time unless it is absolutely essential for the purposes of this Bill.
The 1945 Act has other provisions for which an extension of the war period is desired under this Measure. That Act gives power to divert, or close, highways temporarily controlled under the Defence Regulations. All these powers—and this answers the question asked by both previous speakers—operate at the present on the assumption that the war period will end on the expiry of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, that is, at the end of next February; but it is the purpose of the Bill, as the Committee knows, to keep some of these Defence Regulations alive, and to continue powers conferred by the 1945 Act. Therefore, it is essential, if these purposes are to be implemented, that the definition of what the war period is to be must be extended, in order that the powers to which I have referred can be exercised after 24th February next. If the Sub-section is not agreed to it will be impossible under the Bill after next February to acquire land on which work has been done or to stop up permanently highways which have been temporarily closed.

Mr. Turton: On that point, surely there are two years from next February and not from February, 1945.

Mr. Hall: The process has to be begun. It may take two years. It would be impossible, suppose a Government were so minded and it was essential, to take any new measures after the end of February unless the Sub-section was included in the Measure.

8.15 p m.

Mr. Turton: To clear up this point, may I read out to the hon. Gentleman Section 14 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945? It is:
The power conferred by this Part of this Act shall only be exercisable if the relevant agreement to buy, notice to treat, or order has been made or served before the expiration of two years from the end of the war period.

That is, on the hon. Gentleman's argument, two years from 24th February, 1946.

Mr. Hall: What the hon. Member says, of course, is true, and in that sense what he says is right. There is this power, which continues for two years after the end of next February.
Another very useful power is given in Section 6 of the Act of 1945 and, if the Sub-section is dropped, could not be used under the terms of this Bill. That is the power which requires Government Departments to rehabilitate land on which work has been done by the Government or upon which damage has been caused by Government use. If such rehabilitation is necessary, as frequently it is, unless the Sub-section is included it will not be likely that the Government will do that. I would say that, when the Bill was in draft before the last Election, the Clause was contained in that draft. It was part of the Bill as agreed to by the Coalition Government which went out of office when the Caretaker Government came in.

Mr. Turton: It was not in the printed copy.

Mr. Hall: I wish my hon. Friend would allow me to make my point. The reason why the Clause was not included when the Bill saw the light of print and Members became aware of it was that the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill had not then become an Act. Therefore it was impossible to include a provision like this in the first draft of this Bill because at that time the 1945 Act had not been put on the Statute Book. I can assure my hon. Friends that it had been, and was, the intention of the last Government to include these powers in the Bill, if the Bill had not been dropped.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Was that made known to the House?

Mr. Hall: I do not know. Nevertheless, we are grateful to hon. Members who have put this Amendment down because they have drawn our attention—

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Forgive me for a moment. Was the fact mentioned at all in the Memorandum? Has the hon. Member got a copy of it?

Mr. Hall: I think if we mention in the Explanatory Memorandum of Bills everything which was done, or suggested, or contemplated when the last Government was in office, the Memoranda of Bills would run to many pages. Hon. Members may take it from me that the facts are as I have just stated.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I have here the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum and there is no mention whatever of the point in it.

Mr. Hall: I am afraid that I do not gather what the hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to say. I made a perfectly straight forward statement which can be checked by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: If my hon. Friend takes that line, which has been sprung on us without notice, I would point out that there are alongside me certain Members who were in the Coalition Government and who were particularly concerned. This is the first I have ever heard of such a suggestion, and if it had been done it would have been a gross violation of the promise that had been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) and my right hon. Friend who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that the power of the new requisitioning would definitely be limited to two years. I hope that my hon. Friend, in fairness to us, will withdraw that suggestion, because we have had no notice of it at all.

Mr. Hall: I do not know anything about that. There appears to be a difference of view between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. I was not at the Treasury when the Coalition Government were in office, but I am informed—and if I am wrong I will apologise later for it—that when this Bill was in draft there was a Clause similar to this one inserted. It was dropped because at that time the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill had not been passed and the decision then was to insert it later as an Amendment in the present Bill after the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill had actually reached the Statute Book.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: On a point of Order.

May I ask your guidance, Major Milner, on whether it is in Order for the hon. Gentleman, in resisting an Amendment moved by the Opposition, to quote a Cabinet draft of the previous Government?

Mr. Hall: This was not a Cabinet draft.

Sir Waldron Smithers: The right hon. Gentleman said "I am informed." Will he tell us by whom he was informed?

The Chairman: In answer to the point of Order, there is nothing out of Order in what the Financial Secretary is saying.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: Will the hon. Gentleman disclose from whom he got his information, and whose decision it was?

Mr. Hall: The hon. and gallant Member is fairly new to this House, otherwise, I think, he would not have asked a question of that sort. I do not want to make more of this than I need. I make the statement for what it is worth. That the late Coalition Government contemplated introducing a Bill of this kind is within the recollection of the House. For the moment, I leave it at this, because it is really a small point. They did contemplate inserting a provision of this kind as soon as the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill had been passed. The reason it was not put in the present Measure earlier was that the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill had not then reached the stage of an Act.
We are grateful to those who put down this Amendment because, in examining the position in the light of it, we have discovered that a gap had been left which quite property should be filled. We propose therefore when we reach the Report stage to move an Amendment which will fill that gap, and cover the definition not only of "war period" but of the phrase "war purposes." I thought the Committee would like to know that, and to know, in addition, how grateful we are to those who moved the Amendment and thus called our attention to the matter.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I listened with great attention to the speech that has just been. delivered, and my hon. Friend did not make any attempt to give any reason for the statement which he made. He said that one of the reasons why the Government wanted this Sub-section was that the


Service Departments could not make up their minds yet as to the land they wanted permanently to retain or purchase and the land or buildings they thought they could return to their owners. What an argument coming from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. My experience of Government Departments was that one of the weaknesses during the war was the fact that the Treasury had very little control over the Service Departments. I am sure that many of the cases which many of us knew of Service Departments spreading their tentacles without much consideration for either agricultural land, which affected me, or for the rights of individuals, was due to the fact that the Treasury had so little control. One would have expected that the Treasury of all Departments would welcome having a date by which other Departments had to make up their minds whether or not they wanted to retain land or buildings indefinitely or whether they wanted to give them up.
I can conceive, for example, of no greater waste of national resources, especially at a time when everybody knows we shall be pressed very hard for supplies of food, than to allow the Air Ministry to put off for seven years deciding whether some of the 600-odd aerodromes they have their hands on should be restored to agriculture or not. On the contrary, what we want is that they should make up their minds at once. I expect that my right hon. Friend is a member of the Ministers' Committee which took the place of a committee we had in the last Government, which seeks to get Government Departments to make up their minds what should be restored at once and what they needed permanently. I beg my right hon. Friend to consult the Home Secretary and see whether, between now and the Report stage, we cannot introduce into this Clause some limiting words. If he comes along and says two years is too short and can produce valid arguments for three years, I think that would be reasonable. At all events, it would be an arguable case. But to come down and say that Service Departments cannot make up their minds to seven years is to expect too much even of hon. Members on this side of the House.

Mr. Turton: May I make an appeal to the Home Secretary? Could not he accept the Amendment, and, between

now and the Report stage, draft other words to cover the limited use to which, I understand, the Financial Secretary requires to extend the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act? It would be a pity for a decision of the Committee to go out that, for instance, certain highways are to be stopped up for seven years. The way in which we have dealt with similar problems before is to accept the Amendment and the Home Secretary would come at a later stage and put forward new wording.

Mr. Ede: I am sorry I was not in when the hon. Member was speaking, but I had sat in the Committee continuously from 3·15 until just before he rose, and I hope he will understand that there was no discourtesy to him. As has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York), he knows that I am personally interested in the kind of case that he has just put to me. We are giving consideration to the point in the hope that we shall be able on the Report Stage to submit an Amendment that will make the purposes for which this Sub-section is required perfectly clear. It would not be quite fair to the Committee to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion, but I will undertake that the matter shall have the closest attention of the Government.

Mr. Turton: On that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.30 p.m.

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to move, in page 4, line 44, after "1945," insert:
excepting Sub-section (2) of Section forty-five thereof.
I think I can move this Amendment quite briefly, but it is necessary for me to explain why it would be very undesirable, and I think unfair, that the extension of the war period should apply to Section 45 of the Requisitioned Land Act. It did happen that during the earlier part of the war a large number of properties were requisitioned by the Government at very low rents indeed. That was because at the time there was either the blitz or the anticipation of the blitz, and the rents which were fixed, and have since remained in force, are actually below the figure for the 1939 rent and remain below the current market figure. That being so, Section 45 was designed to adjust the position. It provided that the


compensation rent should be increased so that it should be equal to the 1939 rent or the current market rent, whichever was the lower. But it provided that that adjustment should not take effect until a day to be appointed by the Treasury, which was to be a date not later than the end of the war period. The war period then contemplated, and as defined in that Act, was the period during which the Emergency Powers Act remained in force. That period will expire in February next, and I am quite sure that it has never been intended by anybody responsible in either the Coalition Government or this Government that this period should be extended for this purpose. The only reason why the day has not yet been appointed is a purely administrative one. It is, I think, admitted by everyone concerned in this matter, and has always been admitted, that the rents should have been increased from the end of the European war, but for purely administrative reasons the appointed day has still been postponed. In those circumstances, I am sure the Home Secretary will agree that for this purpose the war period ought not to be extended beyond February next.

Mr. Ede: When I saw this Amendment on the Paper I felt inclined to accept it, and even after the hon. Gentleman's speech I still think it is a good one. Therefore, I hope I am not giving him too much of a shock when I say that the Government are grateful to him for putting it on the Paper, and accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(Application of Powers of Ministry of Supply.)

Major Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 5, line 1, leave out Sub-section (1).
My hon. Friend who moved his Amendment in connection with Clause 5 said that he thought it was dynamite, and certainly he went very vigorously into the whole question of his opposition to it. With regard to this Clause, I think its explosive power is really atomic, for it is, in my opinion—with the exception of one which we shall no doubt discuss later—quite the most menacing Clause in the whole of this very menacing Bill. As it stands it renews and confirms the powers of that already

bloated Department the Ministry of Supply, which was set up during the war as a purely war-time Department by a purely war-time Measure, extends those powers and, so far as I can see, increases them—at any rate in no way diminishes them—and lets them go on for another five years. The 1939 Act which set up the Ministry of Supply, we all agreed, was definitely a war-time Measure, and it can be extended now for a year at a time, indefinitely if the House so desires, and I can well imagine that nobody at the moment wants to shut down the Ministry of Supply. We should be most disappointed to lose my right hon. Friend and to see him transferred to another quarter, or even perhaps to another place. But surely the present powers of the Minister and of his great, swollen Department can go on year by year with the will of the House. Why should we be asked suddenly to reverse the principal point of that 1939 Act? Why should we cancel the idea of extending it year by year, and carry it on for another five years without any further question and then, I presume, extend it year by year after that? It seems to me to be quite unnecessary to have included provision for such tremendous powers to be given to the Ministry of Supply for another five years.
The Clause makes the Minister a sort of Pooh-Bah, which in any case he has been throughout the war, but why should he be a Pooh-Bah in peace-time as well? He can do everything. This enables him, and the Ministry, to produce anything they want, to control the production of any article they want, and to compete, as a huge State-trading Department, with private enterprise in any way they decide—I thought that would please the other side—not reckoning all that private enterprise has done to make this country great and enable it to carry through two great wars. There is no doubt that the powers which the Ministry of Supply seek to continue will definitely upset the whole balance of our trading practice. There seems to be just nothing which the Ministry of Supply cannot do. If it wants to do so it can control, it can produce, and it can sell at any price it likes, whether it is an economic price or not does not matter, whether the taxpayer will lose by that uneconomic price or not does not matter. The Ministry of Supply is a law unto itself, and will continue to be so for another five years. It can dispose of any


articles that it so desires, at any price it so desires, at the expense of the taxpayer.
What does a great Government Department really mind about what it is going to cost the taxpayer? This Department, which already, we thought, ought to be reduced now the war is over, will unquestionably save jobs for all its members, and, very probably, increase its personnel during the next five years. It has all these great powers. Therefore, how can it reduce its personnel because of the valuable work it is doing? It is just giving the Ministry of Supply a blank cheque, as, of course, the whole Bill is a blank cheque, and the party opposite know darned well it is a blank cheque. This is, of course, just the sort of thing we knew would come, just the sort of thing that Mr. Laski [Laughter.] It is nice to feel that my hon. Friends opposite can laugh about Mr. Laski now. As I was saying, it is just the kind of thing he advocated and said the Labour Government would do when it took office. It is just the sort of thing the President of the Board of Trade advocated in his book some time ago, that as soon as the Labour Government took office all these things and powers must be taken straight away. This particular Clause is unnecessary. We could have kept the Ministry of Supply, as at 1939, in being without including it in this Bill in any way whatever, and there is absolutely no necessity for the Clause at all. I suggest that it is, in fact, definitely endeavouring to enthrone bureaucracy at the expense of democracy, which is just the kind of thing I expected the other side to do directly they got the opportunity.

8.45 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Donner: I support the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. and gallant Friend and so hilariously listened to by the Benches supporting His Majesty's Government. I should like to suggest that this is no laughing matter. This is a very serious matter, because this Clause confers the most drastic powers upon the Ministry of Supply, powers which cover, as they potentially do, the whole of our national economic life. I would point out to hon. Members opposite that inevitably this Clause will have the most disastrous effects on all industry, industrial planning, and

enterprise in this country. This Clause is a cruel threat; it is a threat of competition; secondly, it is a threat to supply; thirdly, it is an encumbrance to credit.
Our industrialists and our manufacturers have been encouraged to make plans for post-war developments, and the importance of our export trade has been particularly enjoined upon them. We, on this side of the Committee, know that unless we can rebuild our export trade and industries, our people in this country are in for very hard times and will suffer a great deal. When we discuss these matters, we should discuss them seriously and not in. a spirit of ribald laughter, which astonishingly is the attitude of hon. Members on the other side. These matters affect all sections of the community, and I am surprised that hon. Members opposite should find the prosperity of the poorer sections so directly affected by this Clause a matter and food for laughter. Our industrialists cannot plan for the future unless they are given some kind of a reasonably free hand; they cannot plan if they are in the position of the children of Israel, faced with Pharaoh's injunction to make bricks without straw.
I want to say a word, first, about the powers of competition in this Clause. Under it, in supplying articles required for the public service, the Minister of Supply is empowered to use all existing war factories, to acquire any factory belonging to anybody else, to build an unlimited number of factories in this country and to make, on any scale, anything whatever which a Government Department, anywhere, might conceivably consider, in any conceivable circumstances, that it might need. It would be true to say that the Minister of Supply has the power to make every tropical sun helmet for civil servants in the Seychelles. He can make every purchasable article falling within the vast and varied purview of the Crown Agents of the Colonies. This Clause empowers the Minister of Supply to manufacture anything, however uneconomically, on whatever scale, and at the expense of the taxpayer. That is what His Majesty's Government desire to do, and intend to do to-night. The public had better realise that to the full.
Let us say that I am exaggerating; let us say that the Minister of Supply—who is so very amiable and pleasant, and sits there smiling—will use these powers with discretion, because I am sure that will be


his defence. Let us say that he will behave as a reasonable human being, and use these powers with moderation and circumspection. Nevertheless, the very existence of these powers constitutes a threat, a menace and a discouragement to every manufacturer, large or small, in this country. There is nothing whatever which some Ministry could not use except, perhaps, playing cards and babies' bottles, and the right hon. Gentleman will have the power to manufacture everything except, possibly, those articles. When I contemplate this Clause, and then look at the faces of His Majesty's Government opposite. I am driven to the irresistible conclusion that they have made a new discovery in the field of medical science, or should I say psychological medicine, because they have invented a new political mental malady, political folie de grandeur. Not the wildest dreams of a conquering Tamburlaine or Charlemagne extended to the manufacture and control of absolutely everything.
The Minister of Supply under this Clause has the power to control and manufacture absolutely everything. In a thousand fields of endeavour large industrialists and small will be helpless and hopeless when pitted against the Minister's monstrous and megalomaniac powers which this Government demand, and are to-night taking. After all, we are not in war-time conditions. We are dealing with peace-time regulations. In these circumstances, under this Clause industrialists cannot compete. It is too unfair. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, will say, in this connection, whether his factories, whether they be new or whether they be acquired, will be free from rates and taxes—whether his State-controlled factories will have this added advantage over normal traders.
If any industrialists, greatly daring, perhaps foolhardily, possibly desperately, should dream of competing against the State factories which, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, there is a phrase in Clause 6 which specifically extends the vast powers of the Minister of Supply so as to give an utterly unfair advantage to the Minister. Ordinary manufacturers have to depend on time and place, markets and seasons, for their raw materials. Not so with the Minister

of Supply. He is specifically empowered to take any supplies and to buy them at any price. The Clause reads:
the expression 'articles required for the public service' shall include any supplies which the Minister of Supply considers it necessary or expedient to maintain, control or regulate for any of the purposes specified in Sub-section (1) of Section one of this Act,
That means this. It means that if the right hon. Gentleman decides to manufacture 10,000 units of any article, and if subsequently, at his personal discretion and without any check by anybody else whatsoever, he comes to the conclusion that he wants more of that article, no limit is set to the amount of raw materials for making that article which he is empowered to sequester and impound. The evil does not stop there. He may deprive rivals of raw materials on the supposition that some Government Department might conceivably find some use for articles he might manufacture out of these supplies. This extraordinary control contemplates that the Minister of Supply will have power to produce anything from match-heads to mammoth liners. The Clause recklessly reaches out to thwart and handicap all enterprise by impounding the sources of supply.
If the right hon. Gentleman gets these powers, the most sinister and far-reaching effects of all, which will inevitably arise whether the Government like it or not, will be in the realm of banking and credit. Every loan that will be advanced by any private bank to a manufacturer or by any joint stock bank to a farmer, shop keeper or firm, must, if sound banking practice is followed, carry some provision in its rate of interest, some insurance, if you like, against the unpredictable uncertainties introduced by this Clause into all our plans for economic post-war development. In war-time it is just possible, no doubt, to justify the introduction of such a Clause as this, if only for the reason that in war-time the larger reaches of its extravagant potentialities would not and could not come into play.
If the Government mean what this Clause implies, I suggest that this is an act of political lunacy. Do the Government really understand what they are doing? I very much doubt it. If they do, I invite them to take Parliament and the people of this country into their confidence. They have not done so yet. Do they intend to use these powers or not?


If they do, to what extent do they intend to use them? Do they intend to use State trading powers to the limit or not? To what extent do the Government intend to use those powers? What industries are safe from their interference and depredations? How can we build up our export trade and recover our lost prosperity if all our industries have to live in a state of perpetual uncertainty, no industry knowing whether the Government are going to interfere with it or not, acquire it or not, compete with it or not? How is anybody to be expected to start a new industry in this country if at any time the supplies necessary to it may be impounded by the right hon. Gentleman?
In the Second Reading Debate last week the Home Secretary devoted two sentences only to a description of Clause 6, this Clause which gives greater power than Charlemagne ever possessed. As far as I remember, the speech of the Lord President of the Council did not contain a single sentence describing the intentions of this Clause. Why are we not told what the Government intend? Is it all a matter of taking powers which will never be used? Is it all ballyhoo? If it is, there is a word for it—a two-syllable word—humbug. If it is not humbug, what do the Government intend? Parliament and people have not been told. If the intention is unlimited State trading, why were we not told so in the Gracious Speech? To conclude, this Bill h a threat to competition, a threat to supplies and an encumbrance to credit. To use a military metaphor, this Bill is a bayonet pointed at the vitals of all industry and enterprise in this country, and if this Clause is passed I believe that poverty and suffering for our people will follow in its wake.

Mr. Scollan: I did not intend to speak on this Clause, but after listening to the last two speeches I have come to the conclusion that it is about time hon. Members opposite were told that there are some new Members who fought the Election on this very Clause. This Clause was the main subject of my election fight. Anybody listening to the last speech and not knowing exactly what the Labour Party put before the people would have come to the conclusion that this particular Measure, and the powers asked for in it, show the action of a collection of madmen. What is the

position with regard to the Minister of Supply? If the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner) had followed the development of the war carefully, he would have realised that the very system of which he is the champion, which landed us in the war, has completely broken down and cannot operate in the old way, and that it is no use making arguments of the sort he did in the hope of putting Humpty-Dumpty on the wall again. Consequently, what the Labour Party has to do it to concentrate on sound, scientific and reasoned methods of getting the industries of the nation to work properly in order to get us out of the mess we are in.
9.0 p.m.
What is the proper thing to do? Obviously the most important thing we have to consider is the setting up of our export trade. On that there is agreement on all sides of the Committee. If anybody says that this little island is able to maintain the population which it has without importing goods, I disagree.
Unfortunately, it cannot do that, and consequently we have to build up something to give to the other countries in exchange for the things we need. The hon. Member says the industrialist does not know where he is. If he had been in industry as long as I have been he would find that 90 per cent, of the industrialists never knew where they were. It is proposed that the Ministry of Supply shall direct the necessary materials into the proper channels and so put a stop to the "dog-fights" and black market in which they try to get things for their own selfish ends. If that is not clear to the hon. Member, I suggest that he should take a course under the National Council of Labour Colleges. If that is the particular thing he has against this proposal, then one can imagine what it would be like if there was no Ministry of Supply. How do the industrialists work under the present system? They have agents buying abroad and agents buying at home. They have an army of bureaucrats, though they say they do not believe in bureaucracy. They have an army of useless bureaucrats all entering into competition in order to get something for their own firms instead of having a sensible arrangement to direct raw material where it is most useful for the national need. I sincerely hope that any hon. Member opposite who rises will at least talk sense.

The Ministry of Supply and of Aircraft Production (Mr. John Wilmot): The hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner) seemed to be so moved by his carefully prepared and eloquently delivered speech that I am very eager to relieve him from his distraught condition. This Clause, in spite of the horrifying picture he drew of its effects, is in fact almost word for word the same Clause which the Coalition Government put into the Bill.

Squadron-Leader Donner: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. I made it plain that it could be justified in war-time and gave reasons why. If he had listened to what I said he would have heard me say that. This is not a Bill for war-time conditions, and perhaps he has not noticed that peace has broken out.

Mr. Wilmot: The intention was that it should continue for the transition period, and it is still the intention of the Bill. The view the Government take is that it is necessary that the powers under the Clause should extend longer than the original two years previously proposed. It is a fact, as the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) said when he moved the Amendment, that the substance of the Clause is what the Election was about. There is no Member of this House, on this side of the Committee, who did not go frankly to the electors in the constituency he now represents and say, "If my party is returned to power, we shall use the experience and, if necessary, the powers which have been used in the obtaining of munitions of war to secure the vital needs of the country in the period of transition."
That view was frankly put to the electorate. Conservative candidates on the other hand pointed out to the electors that this was to use in peace time powers hitherto used only in time of war. The electors well understood that when they voted for Labour candidates they were voting for the use of such powers to secure houses and essentials for the people and the men coming back from the war. The Government is now bringing to the House of Commons a Clause which will empower it to do the very thing that it has just been elected to do.
But that is not to say that the extravagant and alarming picture which the hon.

and gallant Member for Basingstoke painted is anything more than a fantasy of his own imagination. That was no more a description of the use which the Ministry of Supply will make of these powers to secure vital necessities in the transition period than it is a description of the use of these powers which my predecessors made to secure the vital munitions of war. I would beg the hon. and gallant Member to comfort himself and reflect on the Government's management of its powers during war time, in which both private and public industry were harnessed to the purpose of securing what it was then necessary to obtain. It is necessary that this Clause should be passed, and I must resist the Amendment so ably moved by the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew, because the Ministry of Supply Act, 1939, limits the powers of the Minister to buy, manufacture and sell only those articles required by other Departments for the public service in the discharge of those Departments' functions, or things that were required for the war.
This Clause extends the powers of the Minister of Supply to do the things which are now authorised to be done under Clause 1 of this Bill. These things are not just as the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke says, but the things as listed in Clause 1—to secure a sufficiency of those things essential for the well-being of the community and their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. It is for things that are essential to the life of the community, and I ask the hon. and gallant Member to reflect for a moment what would be the alternative to the Government's having these powers. There is an acute shortage of certain raw materials and of a large range of manufactured articles—things which we must have if the men coming back from the war are to be resettled in comfort and happiness in the country whose life they have saved. Industry is grappling with the task of providing these vast arrears of supplies in the shortest possible time, and at the same time as it is facing that task at home it has also to export goods in order that we may bring in the raw materials which we need.
Part of the purpose of these powers is to release private trade from some part of the burden of providing these things in order that it may the more energetically


tackle the necessity of bridging the gap in the balance of our overseas payments. It is the intention of the Ministry that we should work during this transitional period hand in hand with industry, using such surplus capacity as we may have in the Royal Ordnance factories, whose primary job is to maintain the war potential of the Fighting Services, for filling in the gaps and providing the marginal requirements for goods—such as housing fittings, which arise out of the engineering industry and medical supplies which are needed for the relief of dread disease in Europe that is threatening us all.
These goods are desperately short, and it is the purpose of the Minister of Supply to obtain these things both from private and public industry, and to see that the raw materials which are in short supply, many of which have to be obtained from overseas with precious foreign currency, are available to private manufacturers as well as to the public for the purposes of their trade and are used for the most necessary things first and are not squandered upon luxury purposes for those who have the longest purses. It is because it is necessary at a time like this, when we have not enough to go round, to exercise some regulatory functions, however distasteful they may be, in order that we may see that necessities come before luxuries and that those whose need is greatest shall come before those who can pay the most, that this Clause is needed. I trust that, upon consideration of the desperate need for harnessing to this task of making good our shortages all the capacity that we can muster, and of using what we can get for the most vital purposes first, this Amendment may be withdrawn and that the Committee will enable us to have this Clause.

Squadron-Leader Donner: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down may I point out that he has not answered the question which I put to him. I asked. Will the Government take Parliament and the people into their confidence? Will the right hon. Gentleman say how far it is proposed to go? What are the limits? Are there any industries which are safe from interference? Will the right hon. Gentleman say anything to remove uncertainty so that our industrialists and manufacturers can plan because, unless they can plan, there can be no hope

of recovering the prosperity of this country?

Major Lloyd: I must confess that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to justify the continuance of his Department, but then the object of this Amendment was never to doubt that but to protest at its being included in this Bill at all because, under the Ministry of Supply Act, it could have been continued on from year to year. However, in view of the fact that time is getting on and we have important discussions still to come where vital principles are at stake, and in view of the fact that we do not want to take up undue time on this matter, I am willing to withdraw this Amendment. However, the right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if we on this side of the House watch most carefully the fulfilment of his promise that he will not use these great powers unduly against the public interest and against the interests of the taxpayer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 (Duration.)

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 5, line 38, leave out "five" and insert "two."—[Mr. Churchill.]

In page 5, line 38, leave out "five" and insert "one."—[Mr. Clement Davies.]

9.15 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: May I, for the information of the Committee, say that it is proposed to take the next two Amendments together.

Mr. Clement Davies: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. Does that mean you will not call the Amendment standing in my name and that of my colleagues? Will there be a Division on only one Amendment, or on both?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think I can tell the hon. and learned Member that after the discussion the Question will be put "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."

Mr. Davies: That will not help me very much, because my colleagues and I do not like either five years or two years, and they want to express their opinion in the Lobby.

Mr. Eden: I do not want to intervene on a point of Order, but, with respect, would it not be better in the circumstances if both Amendments were put formally, and the discussion on both taken together?

The Deputy-Chairman: The second will be put if the first is defeated.

Mr. Eden: I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, leave out "five," and insert "two."
I feel that Members in all parts of the Committee will share in the regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), whose name appears first to this Amendment, is unable, owing to indisposition, to move it. We all, I think, feel that a Debate is always enlivened and enriched by any participation on the part of my right hon. Friend and so I think I may be allowed, if the Committee will let me, to send a message of expression of good will on the part of all of us to him, with the hope that he may soon be restored to us to assist in our labors.
I was impressed by the speech we have just listened to from the Minister of Supply. If he will forgive me for saying so, he speaks for the Government Front Bench as to the manner born. He was so praiseworthy that I felt sure that the Home Secretary would accept this Amendment later. What did the right hon. Gentleman say in reply to my hon. Friend? He said, "You ought not to criticise this particular Clause; it is a very good Clause, because it is a Coalition Clause." I am pleading with the Government to say that they will be good enough, in their turn, to accept this modest little Coalition alteration. I will give a little time for an exchange of views between the Home Secretary and the Minister of Supply. Let me try to put this issue to the Committee as it seems to us. It is a simple issue but, as I shall show the Committee, an important issue, both to the House and to the nation. We are not disputing the need for the Government to retain for the period of transition from war to peace some powers, as the Bill says:

…for purposes connected with the maintenance control and regulation of supplies and services…
In our view, retention of these powers is not a matter for excessive rejoicing, but we regard it as inescapable. We are not challenging that to-night. The right hon. Gentleman will, I think, agree that the powers we are being asked to give are very wide. They are sweeping. They are such as no Government has ever asked the country for before in time of peace—

Mr. Gallacher: We have never had a Government before.

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman's support of the present Government is their chief embarrassment. If I were the right hon. Gentleman opposite I would say every time the hon. Gentleman got up, "Save me from my friends." It was different when we were sitting on the opposite side of the House. I apologise for that diversion. The issue raised by this Amendment is this: how long should these very far-reaching powers continue in force without further reference to Parliament?
Let me put to the Committee for a moment the history of this two-years period. As the Committee may know, and as has been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman before, a Bill was drafted during the life of the Coalition Government, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman who now leads the House, with other distinguished names on the back like that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton). That Bill enacted that the period of its existence should be two years, unless it was continued from year to year in pursuance of an Address presented by both Houses of Parliament. At that time, that was our proposal, when the Japanese war was still waging. I think it is fair to say that we had in our minds then—for the purpose of planning you have to have some date in your mind—that the Japanese war would, perhaps, last 18 months, and there would be a further six months after the conclusion of that war during which these powers would run. I think it is generally accepted that was the position when this Bill was drafted and introduced in the days of the Coalition. I submit that to night the conditions are entirely different. The Japanese war is over and we are


immersed in the problems of the transition. Under these conditions, what do we suggest the Government should do? We say to them this: Take these powers, these very weighty and exceptional powers, for two years. Come back at the end of that period to Parliament, which is still sovereign in this country. Report to us on the situation then, and, according to how it has developed, make any demands you have to make to us afresh. That seems to me to be a very reasonable proposal to make.
Let us look for a moment at what may be the position, supposing the Government accept our Amendment, two years from now. They come back to the House. It may be that the position as regards shortages will be as serious and as acute as it is to-day. If that should be the position, the Government will certainly be severely cross-questioned before they are given these powers again. But is not that right? Is not that what Parliamentary Government is for, and is not that what the Government themselves should wish for? Supposing, Mr. Deputy Chairman, as I think is more likely, that two years from now we have not all of us exactly and correctly foreseen the situation, and you find, in certain respects, shortages are more acute than were expected, and, in other respects, much less acute. Some raw materials, for instance, may come to hand to a greater extent than we reckon to-day. Supposing that is the situation, then the Government will still want certain powers, but not the powers exactly in this Bill. They can then come before Parliament make their demands, and the House can debate them, and approve them or reject them. It seems to me that is a very reasonable proposal.
I have read through the whole Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. Like a diligent inquirer after truth, I tried to find why the Government did not like to continue what had been in their minds when they formed part of the admirable Coalition, that is to say that the term of the Bill should be two years. I did not get very much enlightenment from that Second Reading Debate. I only found one reason given why the term of two years could not be accepted and that was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House, and his argument was this:

If we were going to limit the period now to two years we would give the country a falsely-optimistic impression that within those two years the period of shortages would be at an end. If I may say so with respect, I think it requires something more than that from the Government to give the country a falsely-optimistic impression. The outlook is too grim all round. But even admitting the force of that argument, I cannot really believe that the Government expect us to take that argument seriously.
What happened during the war? We came to the House, not after two years but every single year—year by year—to ask the House to give us the emergency powers which we needed. Nobody is going to tell me that because we said: "We want our emergency powers for one year," the last Parliament thought that that was going to be the last year of the war. Supposing I had come to the House and said: "This war is going on for at least three years. Give us these emergency powers for seven years." Hon. Members in the last Parliament know what would have happened. We should not have got them, because the House would have said, rightly: "If you want these exceptional powers which are never granted to a Government in normal times, you must ask for them year by year." That is all we suggest, except that we are rather more generous to the Government than we ourselves asked Parliament to be to us during the life of the last Parliament.
Now I come to the question of the difference between the Amendment put down by my hon. and learned Friend below the Gangway and our Amendment. Let me say at once that if the right hon. Gentleman finds it easier to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend than ours, I will gladly bow to that decision. I suggest that the Government should consider whether it is not reasonable to take this attitude and say "In war we came down and asked for our powers year by year, but in peace we will come down and ask for our powers for two years and then come and ask for them year by year." I noticed that this morning the "Daily Herald" was very indignant about this Amendment and wrote a whole leader about it, which was very flattering to us. They said that it was—I think the word was "criminal"—that anyone should think that there would not be shortages


under this Government two years from now. Far be it from me to suggest any thing of the kind. Indeed, this Amendment does not suggest anything of the kind. All we do say is that we are not quite clear what the position will be two years from now, and we would like the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to come down and tell us and get the necessary powers from us. Why two years? We have rested ourselves upon the Coalition Bill, the terms of which are so dear to the heart of the Minister of Supply. The parentage of the Bill, which the Home Secretary was so ready to attribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot—

Mr. Ede: He was one of the godparents, not the parent.

Mr. Eden: The parentage is good enough. He associates himself and my right hon. Friend with it. All I ask him to do is to take care of the Bill to-night, and not forget it and throw it over for five years. We also rest ourselves on the words of the White Paper, also produced by the Coalition Government, and quoted by the Home Secretary in the Debate last week. These were the words:
It is not yet possible to forecast the length of the transition period during which the prevailing tendency will be for demand to outrun supply.
That is exactly the position to-night, and that is the reason why we ask the Government to come back for these powers if they need them again, or for any modification of these powers they may need, two years from now.
9.30 p.m.
Let us see what is the real objection to doing it. The right hon. Gentleman is not going to ask me to believe it is because it will raise false hopes in the country. He does not think that any more than I do. I know the objection and so does every old Parliamentarian. It is that it does not suit the Government to have to come back to Parliament two years hence on this issue, and every year thereafter. Because of their great majority they say "Now is the time to get this out of the way for five years." [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am very much obliged; I did not dare to hope for that. They say "We have a heavy legislative programme. We have a

lot of work to do." Nothing is so disagreeable as to have to submit your work to Parliament from time to time. If by any chance a Bill is likely to become more and more progressively unpopular, more than ever you do not want to appear before Parliament two years from now.
I submit that hon. Gentlemen who are so enthusiastic about getting rid of this, might consider that there is something more at stake in this than even the convenience of the Government or their convenience. There is the question of the duty of this Committee. I cannot accept that it can be thought right that we should confer upon this Government or indeed upon any Government what is now asked. We never asked for these powers for so long for ourselves in the war. I do not think any Government should come and ask for such powers as these which interfere in the daily life of the ordinary citizen without reference back after a reasonable interval. If this Committee were to agree to that we should be shirking our job. Let me tell hon. Members, wherever they may sit, even in serried ranks behind the Government, that it is still their duty to keep watch over the power of the Executive.
Let me sum up my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not arguing the merits of the Bill. What I am asking is a simple constitutional issue: For how long is Parliament justified in granting such wide powers to the Executive without reference back? Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway say a year, we say two. We base ourselves on the previous Bill and on our desire to make a reasonable allowance for what we know are the Government's present difficulties. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that for every reason, constitutional, democratic, practical and national, it will be wrong for Parliament to part with these powers for five years. In conclusion I greatly dare to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. They have a great majority. The right hon. Gentleman may comfort himself by saying, as a great commander once said, that God is on the side of the big battalions. I would ask him to remember that that particular commander lost his last battle. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can defeat our Amendment in the Lobby to-


night; he can defeat the Amendment of the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway if it is put. In this House majority rules, but a wise majority seeks to take account of the views of the minority.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Did the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Eden: Most certainly. Never on any occasion, as Leader of the House in war-time, did I ask the House for powers as wide as this for as long as this. I hope that next time—one never knows how things will change—

Mr. Taylor: I shall not be alive when the right hon. Gentleman is back.

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member is always a pessimist. Nobody can pretend that this is a wrecking Amendment. You can only pretend it is a wrecking Amendment if you have no confidence in being able to carrying this Bill again two years hence. It would be a confession of impending doom which I do not expect a Government, recently elected, to make.
When I look at the Amendments, I am staggered at our own moderation. All we ask is that, at the end of two years, the Government should come back and ask for these powers, or any modified powers, if they feel that they need them. If they ask for modified powers they will be readily acclaimed by all sections of the people. I hope that the Government will listen to the arguments I have sought to urge. I am sure that if they will do so, and if they will take account of the views expressed in these Amendments, they will not do themselves as a Government any harm but they will show that they can fulfil their function. They will get the Bill with good will, which must be of value to its future operation, and they will show that they are guardians of the liberties of Parliament as much as any other party.

Mr. Clement Davies: The Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, and the one standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends, raise a most serious, fundamental and constitutional question. In regard to the Amendment moved so eloquently by my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, may I point out that those very arguments might be put forward with equal cogency against his own Amendment, which sets a period of two years during which Parliament parts with its own great rights?

Before I come to the actual Amendment, may I make some admissions?
In the first place, of course, the economic position in the country is critical, serious and precarious, more critical, more precarious and more serious than it has ever been in its long history. So is the position in the whole country. That is a situation which is inevitable after a long war. The abnormality which was in existence during the period of world-wide war continues to-day and it is absolutely essential that the Government should have full powers in their hands to do whatever it is necessary for them to do during this abnormal time, and to take such measures as they think right for the safety and well-being of the people of this country. On that statement I, and my hon. Friends, are in complete agreement. May I go further and admit at once that it would be impossible by successive Measures to pass the necessary Acts of Parliament that would be required to enable these powers to be exercised? It can only be done in the way the Bill suggests, namely, by Regulations made by Order-in-Council. Thirdly, it is impossible to prophesy how long the abnormality will continue. One recalls the serious situation after the last war, first the boom and the inflation, followed by deflation, unemployment and suffering, which continued for years afterwards. In fact, it continued during the whole period between the wars. No one can foretell what this abnormal period will be and what will be needed.
I admit all that. But having admitted all that, may I draw the attention of the Committee to what we are proposing to do to-day? We are proposing to part, if the words of the Sub-section are passed, for five years, and, if the Amendment is agreed to, for two years, with the sovereign and constitutional rights of Parliament, a right with which we do not part even in the terrible time of war. We are asked to part with the power of the Legislature and to put it into the hands of the Executive—controlled, I agree—for that definite period, with no liability on the Executive to come down to the House and give an account of its stewardship during that time. What we are proposing is that it is right, fitting and proper that these full powers should be given to the Government and exercised by them, but not for a longer period than


the usual period during which this House parts with powers, namely, one year. After that time, the Government have to come to the House and ask for a renewal of their powers and give an account of their stewardship.
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I listened to the Debate and re-read it to see what were the objections urged from the Opposition bench to the period of five years. May I say in passing that I thought the case for the need of these powers was much more strongly put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) than by the Government Front Bench. Having put the strong reasons for the powers, somehow the right hon. Gentleman began to regret his words, and all he could then say was that he thought that it was a sort of notice to the world at large that we would not be able to put our house in order for five years and that, therefore, we were taking a pessimistic view. The Lord President of the Council took the exact opposite view, and said it would be humbugging the people to suggest that our difficulties would be over in two years and that that would be taking too optimistic a view. We should not take either an optimistic or a pessimistic view, but a realistic view of the situation to-day and face up to the problems as they arise.
I would beg the Government to stick to the constitutional practice. To use an analogy, there is no right to a standing Army in this country except with the consent of Parliament given year by year. For the safety and defence of this country the Executive has to come to the House each year and ask for its sanction to maintain a standing Army. The Government are taking exceptional powers to-day. They are entitled to take them, but Parliament is also entitled to have year by year an account of their stewardship and to decide whether they have made out a good case for its renewal or whether their powers shall be curtailed. Now that they are starting on the great task which is awaiting them, the Government, if they fulfil that task, will carry with them the goodwill of all the people; but I conclude by imploring them, do not part with a single constitutional right which has been so hardly won for the people of this country.

9.45 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Hollis: I claim the indulgence of the Committee for a maiden speech, and I promise that I will not keep the Committee long at this late hour. The Government are asking for very large powers. We are told in a speech of obvious sincerity by the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) that they are justified in asking for these powers because they will use them for public purposes. We are told by another hon. Member that they will use them for the general good. No one wishes to doubt the sincerity of hon. Members, but unfortunately the problem is not as easy as that. Many of the things that were said by Karl Marx were not true, but one thing he said was that human history consists of new governing classes arising out of, and extracting, old governing classes in the name of the general good, and then establishing their power in their place.
I was reading the other day the speeches of Richard Cobden, and it struck me how very similar were the phrases which he used to the phrases used by hon. Members opposite. At last sectional interests would be overcome, legislation in the future would be solely for the general good, and the only difference was that those arguments which Richard Cobden used in order to establish the capitalist system, hon. Members opposite are now using to overthrow it. Surely the one certain lesson of politics is that dreams do not come true. What emerges after five years of a legislative programme is very different from what people wished to emerge, and I do not say that in any criticism of right hon. Members opposite except in so far as it is a criticism of them to say that they are human beings. But whatever the world will be like in five years' time, it will certainly by no means be the world which right hon. Members opposite wish it to be.
Some 10 years ago, shortly before he was shot, Governor Huey Long of Louisiana said a very striking thing. He said, "It is child's play to create a Fascist party—all you have to do is to call it an anti-Fascist party". That was perhaps a somewhat cynical observation, but, if anyone looks around the world that has existed during the 10 years since Governor Long was shot, I doubt whether he can deny that there is an unpleasant degree of truth in the cynicism. We were


told the other day that liberty marches on. I will not dispute the aphorism, if only because I am not quite certain what it means, but a much more important truth about liberty is that it is continually under fire. First one element in the body politic, and then another, gets too strong, and the test of statesmanship is, at any given moment, to see who is the enemy of liberty and not to waste the ammunition of the country in attacking abandoned dug-outs on deserted battle fields.
There may have been a time in the history of this country when kings had too much power, a time when landlords had too much power, when the capitalists had too much power. Hon. Members opposite are eminent Victorians if they imagine that is the danger to-day. They are creatures of a bygone age, preaching gospels which went out of fashion in Queen Victoria's day. Nobody could imagine that it was capitalists who had too much power to-day when the poor, cringing creatures could hardly blow their noses without getting relief from a Government Department. It has been a very wise tradition of the English people to be most reluctant to part with exceptional powers to the Executive, or to the bureaucracy. That is why there is a very strong case that this Committee should be extremely reluctant to vote exceptional powers. On the other hand, there is the case that the times are exceptional, and that the immediate abolition of all exceptional Regulations, or legislation, would cast the country into chaos.
How are we to reconcile these two problems? They can only be reconciled by a compromise, and, surely, the obvious compromise is that proposed by one or other of these Amendments—that the exceptional powers should be granted, but that they should be granted for a very strictly limited time.
We are not asking the Government to say to-day that in two years' time the world will be normal. Everybody admits that it may be necessary for the Government to come down to the House again in two years' time and ask for further exceptional powers, which, if they have good reasons for asking, will be granted. But the all-important point is that exceptional powers should be granted for short periods, subject to continual examination and debate, in order that the people

of England, willingly accepting discipline when it is necessary to accept it, should, nevertheless, be continually reminded that England was once a free country, and that, God helping us, she will be a free country again.

Mr. Ede: In replying to what is admittedly a critical Amendment on this Bill, it is well that the Minister should be able to start on a point at which he will carry the whole Committee with complete unanimity. I do so by expressing our pleasure and delight at the speech to which we have just listened. It is no small test to make a maiden speech at any time, and, speaking for myself, looking back on the distant days when it fell to my lot, I was thankful that the audience was small. It is almost the supreme test to have to make a speech in a crowded House, at the end of a long day, in which the Debate has been keen and in which the subject has been ventilated from almost every point of view, and then be able to bring into the discussion an atmosphere of freshness, of good humour, and, from the point of view of the hon. and gallant Member making it, sound common sense, is an achievement for which the hon. and gallant Member may well feel satisfied. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that, much as the Government at about this time of the evening will often be anxiously looking at the clock, some of our apprehensions will be allayed if the hon. and gallant Gentleman rises to give us another treat like the one he has given us this evening.
May I now come to a second point on which I know the Committee will be unanimous, and ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Lamington (Mr. Eden) to associate all of us in the note he is going to send to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? We all of us regret his absence, for he is, with all the differences we have had with him, a very great House of Commons man, and we hope that in the days not far distant he will return to us with all his accustomed strength and vigour.
Carrying on in the same spirit, may I endeavour to meet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Lamington on this point of the Coalition? He wants two years, we want five. I am told that seven is the perfect number. We


would both get what we wanted then. He could have the first two, and we would have the last five. But I realise that that would be asking too much of him even in the genial temper of the Committee at the present moment. There is one thing I want to say with regard to the Coalition. I occupied a very subordinate place in the Coalition Government, but I had the very good fortune to be associated with a Minister, of an opposite party to mine, in promoting one of the great legislative achievements of the Coalition Government. I said it in the last Parliament, and I repeat it here—he and I were very good friends in the discussions we had, but there came moments when I had pressed something very hard upon the right hon. Gentleman and he said, "Well, you know, the boys behind me won't stand for that"; and the boys behind him being more than the boys who would have been behind me had I been on the appropriate side of the House, I had to bow to the inevitable logic of the Division Lobbies. I think we are entitled to say that when you have a Bill that was promoted by the Coalition, it does indicate what the mind of the Conservative Party was, because they had the power to impose on the Coalition House of Commons their view if they wanted to do so; but it does not by any means follow that when you have an Act passed in the Coalition period of the last Parliament, it represents what the Labour Party regarded as a satisfactory way of dealing with the situation. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether I was wise to be associated with the Education Act of 1944, and whether I ought not to have waited for the Education Act of 1946.
10 p.m.
We have had put before us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Lamington his case on this matter. I could not help remembering, while he was speaking, one of the aphorisms of Sir Charles Oman, whom some of us recollect as one of the Members for Oxford University:
Man learns nothing from history except that man teams nothing from history.
The people of this country have had a very bitter history during the last 25 years. They are not as alarmed at this Measure as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they recall that it was two

years after the last war that all controls were swept away and Britain took the plunge into the economic abyss from which it did not emerge until the opening of the war which has just past. Therefore, they are more prepared now than they were at the end of the 1914–18 war to believe that the future is grim and that the task in front of them as well as the Government is exceedingly difficult and that we shall only emerge from that period successfully if we have no hasty improvisation but long term planning. I do want to emphasise those last three words "long term planning." My right hon. Friend paid a well-deserved tribute to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. How can be embark upon the policy which, in spite of the caricature which was given by the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Squadron Leader Donner), is essential if we are adequately to harness ail the great resources of this country to the task of building up our comfort and reasonable prosperity at home and regaining the export trade. He must be in a position to be able to plan for at least the period for which we ask in this Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman made some play with the fact that his Government brought the Emergency Powers Bill before the House annually. There were many differences between the emergency powers and the powers that are given in this Measure. The power that, in my experience, most exercised the House, the one on which the most critical Debates occurred was the use that might be put, or was being put, on Regulation 18B and the Regulations that were associated with the necessities with which that Regulation dealt. There are no similar powers in this Measure. Most of those powers were revoked on the day after the end of the German War by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. We are here engaged on the task of building, at home and abroad, the future prosperity of this country.
I am quite sure that every hon. Member in the House knows that, if we came back in two years' time, judging by what happened in 1920 and compared with what might happen in 1947, in the light of the experience of the people of this country, we should have to ask for a continuance of most, if not all, of the powers in this Measure. [HON. MEMBERS:


"Why not do it?"]. Really, I have just tried to explain that. You could not expect the Minister of Supply and the other Ministers to embark on a long-term plan if their powers were limited by as early a recall as two years.
If the House at any time feels that we have abused these powers or that any of them have been unnecessarily or oppressively used, there is, of course, the terrific weapon of the Vote of Censure; there are the annual Estimates of the Minister; there is the opportunity of raising the matter at Question Time, and on the Motion for the Adjournment. We have no desire to escape from any of these necessary safeguards which the development of the practice of this House has brought to, the protection of the population and for the due chastisement of Ministers. But I do want to say that democracy in this country is very much on its trial, and we have to be very careful that it does not fall into the same disrespect in this country as that into which it fell in most of the countries of Western Europe by the undue exercise of I criticism, on trivial points leading to the loss of faith in the capacity of democracy to do the things which are required of it.
That is the case on which we base this term of years. We believe that, with a five year term, we can plan with sufficient confidence to be able to make a real inroad into the problems that confront us, and we believe that, with the constant watching of the House of Commons, we shall be kept fully keyed up to the necessity of observing all those proprieties which it is our earnest wish to observe. As the hon. and gallant Member for Devizes (Sqdn.-Leader Hollis) so wisely said, even on this side of the Committee we are human and we realise that, good as our intents are, it is just as well that we should be under constant surveillance by an alert and energetic Opposition. We feel that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Lamington and those associated with him are well skilled in the Parliamentary arts and will enable us to make a great success of this five year experiment.

Mr. Raikes: I claim the right to criticise a Minister, even at ten minutes past ten at night. I do not propose to give up an old tradition of Parliamentary life. For my part, I was very disappointed with the reply of the

Home Secretary. He said, "We must have five years, because the people of this country have learned a good deal since 1918, of the disadvantages of immediately removing controls." Well, if that is so, why is the right hon. Gentleman afraid of giving the opportunity of a lifetime to the present Parliament to re-examine the position? The right hon. Gentleman goes beyond that. He says, "The Government have to have an opportunity of long-term planning so far as these controls are concerned." I wonder whether the Government, in their desire for a long-term planning for industry, are going to tell manufacturers that there is to be no nationalisation for a long period, so that they can plan? But in this Bill they have to plan ahead. They must not come before Parliament and say, "After two years what do you think we are doing?" If the right hon. Gentleman has any confidence in his long-term planning he would be willing to have an opportunity, in two years' time, of coming to the House and say, "Look how we have advanced; look what we have done; help us to carry on the work." But no, his long-term planning must not be interrupted by Parliamentary debate in the next two years for Parliament may not be so fond of the planners as he is himself.
On the point made all through the Debate, about false hopes, if there is one argument that I never expected to hear from a Labour Government it was fear of inspiring the country with false optimism. Surely, false optimism is a miserable sort of case to trump up at this stage. A few minutes ago, when we were discussing an Amendment regarding the powers of the Ministry of Supply, it was agreed that the powers should be given for a period, if necessary, to encourage State trading and so on, because we were assured by the Minister of Supply that he would deal wisely with the powers that are being entrusted to him. Surely, after two years we should be in a rather good position to see whether the Minister of Supply was a wise man, or whether he had been tempted by State trading in Queensland, New South Wales and elsewhere down the slippery slope, and was going to follow a policy which would empty the pockets of the taxpayers. We are not to be allowed, in the lifetime of the present Parliament, to see whether State trading


is going to be a success or a failure. I see the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) opposite. How I wish he were sitting on this side now. What a voice he would raise about the power of the Executive over the rights of Parliament. He would protest in far more eloquent and forceful language than I can employ.
10.15 p.m.
We have been told from the Benches opposite how advisable it is that we should plan for the export trade. Is there not a possibility that under this Measure we may find Government guess work as to who needs new material and who does not need new material, that it is going to lead to increased scarcity rather than the expansion of trade without which this country is sunk? They may, on the other hand, do very well, but surely in the lifetime of this Parliament we should have an opportunity of examining afresh whether these proposals expand the export trade or whether they make nonsense of all trade whatsoever.
In conclusion: I look with some fear at this advance of the power of the Executive which we have seen in many other countries, apart from our own. I fear that Ministers will have a free rein for the whole Parliament to do what they like without proper scrutiny. If that which is to be done in this Bill were to be carried out generally over the country, then Parliament would be nothing more than a Reichstag. [Hon. Members: "No."] What is the use of Debates at all if because the Executive are such nice, pleasant, good-natured looking gentlemen, and so well—mannered, we must not do anything until after the next Election has turned them out to discover whether they are good, bad or indifferent? I have no doubt that our Amendment will be turned down to-night. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Those who cheer now are those who will play their part to-night in riveting once again upon the necks of the people of this country wartime restrictions for an indefinite period of time, hoping that in due course—it has happened in other countries in the course of the last 10 or 15 years—men and women will forget what freedom is. [An Hon. Member: "Freedom to starve."] and those freedoms for which we fought in this war will be lost.

Mr. Pritt: I rise. Major Milner, only to—

Hon. Members: Speak up.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: Hon. Members opposite have accused me of almost everything in my time except of not speaking up. If they are serious in their anxieties, I will speak up. I have been listening to this Debate with some interest. Most of us who have studied the Party opposite, and the great interests in this country and in other countries, which they represent, directly or indirectly, have been wondering for some time whether the real attack, which will duly come—and will come, no doubt, below the belt—would take place mainly in this House, or outside or both. Well, they have demonstrated, at any rate this evening, that the things they are going to attack in this House for the moment are matters utterly trivial and unimportant. [An Hon. Member: "Such as liberty."] There is no doubt that they will always attack liberty, but I want to show for a moment that their new-found love for democracy and liberty can find very little to do on this Amendment. It is put forward as a matter of most tremendous importance, an epoch-making change—and heaven knows what. I do not believe that they would have said a word about this, if they did not remember that bogy No. 7 or bogy No. 8—I forget which it was—that was raised at the General Election was something about controls. So when we got a Bill about controls, they said, "We must make a noise about that." Then they said, "Well, we cannot raise a noise about the necessity for keeping on controls, because we should look tremendous fools if we did that, and we only like to look tremendous fools when there is no other way out, so we had better attack some detail in Committee." So they attacked a detail and said "two years instead of five" and then they have had to try to build it up as something of great importance.

Mr. Marlowe: If a man is sentenced to five years' penal servitude and another man to two years' penal servitude, does the hon. and learned Member think that the difference is a detail?

Mr. Pritt: With regard to natural feelings on this subject, I will leave that to


the legal experience of my hon. and learned friend. [Hon. Members: "Answer."] If hon. Members really want to listen to me now, the answer to questions of detail will come in the due course of my speech, which will not be very long unless it is interrupted. The hon. Member who has recently travelled 200 miles North-West from his previous constituency says that the planners for exports cannot get on with their planning, if they know that for five years the Government may use upon them these great powers. It is interesting to know that some sections of industry represented by the Tory Party are interested in a little planning, in the light of what was said at the General Election. But does the hon. Member think that if they want a settled legislative period in which to plan, they would be any better off with two years instead of five? What an unimportant detail it is. We are told that the power of the Executive, if it is to last like this for rive years, is a very serious matter. The truth is that the power of the Executive of this House is strong, and so it should be, but the power of the Executive of this country, including the power of the Executive in this House, depends on the hold that the Government have upon the general political support of the country.
The plain truth about two years or five years is this. The power of the Executive really rests on the support of the country. And why I say that the difference between two years and five years is a detail is that if this Executive continues, as I think it will, to hold the main support of the vast body of political opinion in the country, then it could be quite certain that at the end of two years this House would give it this power again. If, on the other hand, it does not maintain its hold on the support of the country, then in two years' time the House will be compelled to turn it out in one way or another or repeal the Act. In two years' time, if there was a real belief in the country that these powers ought not to be held by the Government, they would have to drop them. The real difference between two years and five is that if we maintain our hold on the support of the country in two years' time, to come forward and ask for these powers to be renewed would simply be a waste of Parliamentary time. Numbers of hon.
Members opposite, wise or unwise, would get up and on Second Reading and Committee stages take up two or three days of valuable Parliamentary time to no purpose at all.
Much worse than that, there is another place, and one of these days it may be part of the policy of the Tories to pick a quarrel with us in that place, and it might suit them extremely well, when the time for sabotage comes, to produce a discussion an another place upon a renewal Bill. Then we should be confronted, just as we were getting on with some really useful work, with a first-class constitutional crisis which might have to be resolved by ennobling 600 or700 trade union officials. It would be a waste of good Parliamentary time, and would be a strain on the people who hire out robes. I suggest that like a great deal of what the Opposition has done in this new Parliament this is simply shadow boxing; there is no importance in it, there is no reality in it. This Government will continue to maintain their necessary powers if the country supports them. If the country does not support them the Government will not be able to maintain those powers. I hope the Committee will throw out the Amendment by an overwhelming majority.

Sir Alan Herbert: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate to-night but if I had had even less intention to speak, that modicum of intention would have been greatly stimulated and increased by the animal cries I have heard from the other side of the Committee when humble Private Members on this side have ventured to do what is their duty—to offer such foolish thoughts as are in their minds. I have been highly interested by these proceedings to-night. Perhaps some Members opposite, all of whom I love dearly, will recall the modest speech I made early this Session, when I predicted that there would be, fairly soon, some element of frustration on that side, and also that I thought that they would very soon find themselves, as another hon. Member has already said, wondering whether they were not in an institution like the German Reichstag. What has happened? The Fuehrer has spoken, the howling down of the Opposition has been tried, and one Member only on that side has ventured to support the case of His Majesty's Gov-


eminent. Who is that? A Member who does not belong to the official Party. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) on his courage—the only man who dares to stand up on that side of the Committee and defend the policy of His Majesty's Government. [Interruption.] I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend, my old school friend, who ought to wear the old school tie more often than he does, and who is a very valuable representative of West London. We are facing a situation where hon. Members opposite are slaves, subjects of the Fuehrer, terrified to speak in favour of the Government.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: May I point out that my hon. Friend was a little unfair in saying that the only speech in support of the Government came from an hon. Member who had been expelled from the Party? The Communist Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) also spoke in support of the Government.

10.30 p.m.

Sir A. Herbert: I have only a few disjointed thoughts to offer. One is this and it is a serious thought. These proceedings are an interesting commentary on some remarks recently made in this House by, amongst others, the Leader of the House about the Committee stage not being an important part of Parliamentary procedure. It is thought by some that what ought to happen is that on Second Reading the principle is passed, and then the "trivial details" might be settled elsewhere by delegated powers. But what happens here? The principle of this Bill has been carried without a dissentient vote. Only when you get to Committee do you have this very real and important division of opinion. That may be irrelevant or, possibly, out of Order—[Interruption.] I do advise hon. Members—perhaps new Members—to resist the temptation to interrupt in too impulsive a manner because, believe us, some of us old stagers do know what we are talking about. In the most respectful manner I do suggest that some hon. Members should maintain a modest, decent raticence until a subject does arise on which they have at least some elementary knowledge.

Dr. Morgan: Take your own medicine.

Sir A. Herbert: I thought I was distributing a little medicine. I have the Floor of the Committee and the new Committee on Procedure has not yet reported. I am quite prepared to walk home six miles to Hammersmith and I do not care two pence how far any other hon. Member has got to walk. The fewer irrelevant interjections I receive the more rapidly will our new Members return to their homes.
Another odd thought is this. One reason I was surprised that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not accepted with alacrity this Amendment, is this. By the terms of the Bill, these new powers continue for five years after the passing of the Act. In other words, these powers expire after the end of this Parliament, in other words, at the time of the next General Election if this Parliament endures its natural term.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: The country endures it.

Sir A. Herbert: This Act will still be in force. However many blessings right hon. Gentlemen opposite bestow on this country, and I think they may bestow a great many, because I am not a partisan. [Laughter.] That is the kind of foolish laughter which will get hon. Members into great trouble before they have finished. I am the only genuine independent in this House, with the exception of my hon. Friend—

The Chairman (Major Milner): Will the hon. Member kindly address his remarks to the Chair?

Sir A. Herbert: I have never used the word "you" once. I have not addressed hon. Members as "you."

The Chairman: The hon. Member has addressed a great number of remarks to different quarters of the Committee. He should address the Chair.

Sir A. Herbert: I apologise. My voice is not very strong and I was addressing myself to that microphone.

Earl Winterton: Do I understand, Major Milner, your Ruling to be that an hon. Member is allowed to address Members on the other side of the Committee, provided that he addresses them through the Chair?

Major Milner: In my opinion, the hon. Member was not doing that.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, is an hon. Member on the other side of the Committee entitled to suggest that our objection to listening to rotten arguments from Members opposite only shows a desire on our part to go home early?

Sir A. Herbert: Major Milner, I have to obey your Ruling, whatever it is, but I have not the faintest idea what I have done wrong. May I say again that I have been endeavouring most of the time to address my remarks to that microphone? I am not the one to address hon. Members as "you" and I have not used that word at all. However, let us get on. This Amendment is fundamentally the most frightful confession of failure that has ever been put upon the Statute Book. I quite understand our friends opposite saying things are difficult, that they must have extensive powers for a couple of years, but by the grace of God and their promises and the plans, all will be well in a very short time. But what do they say? They say they want them for five years, possibly even 10, these widespread powers, these exceptional delegations of power—which are described as trivial by hon. Members opposite, will be necessary, in spite of all their fine plans.
My other point was this—that all the professions we have heard from the other side to-night are similar to those which I heard the other day about Private Members' time. We are told it is long-term planning. And, by the way, is there anything incompatible between long-term planning and the Amendment? Good gracious me, the Prime Minister in the last Government did a good deal of long-term planning: though he had to come for his powers year by year. The fundamental thing is, in spite of all this specious talk about a great legislative programme—which I think is much exaggerated—look what happened last Friday, which should have been our first Friday; the great legislative programme was finished at one o'clock—in spite of all this talk, when you get down to rock bottom it is nothing but a lust for power, a consciousness of power, the determination to retain power. I say to this Committee that there is no man, no party, no country which lusts for power, and governs its activities by the lust for power, that does not rue it in the end—and so will they.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I will if I may take the mind of the Committee back to the speech which the Home Secretary made in resisting the Amendment, because it does seem to me that there is no issue here of principle in regard to the powers that the Government are to have. It is common ground on both sides of the Committee that a period of emergency is to be met which demands especial powers, and these especial powers it is the will of both sides of the Committee that the Government should have. The simple point of difference between the two sides is whether these should be granted for five years or two years.
It was to that point that the Home Secretary directed the gravamen of his argument. With great respect I want the Committee to look at the arguments the Home Secretary adduced in favour of five years instead of two, because that is the whole point of the Amendment we are discussing here. His first point was that we have—as indeed we have—unhappy memories of the collapse that followed after the last war some two years or so after the war came to an end.
We all remember the ugly facts, but does the Home Secretary ask us to believe there is any analogy properly to be drawn between then and now? Then we had a Parliament elected in 1918 of "hard-faced men who had done well out of the war," and who were in favour of going back to the anarchy of unrestricted private enterprise at the earliest possible moment. We have a Parliament to-day in which there are approximately 400 Members of the Labour Party; I cannot say the precise number, but something less than 200 Members of the Conservative Party; about 10 of the Liberal Party, and only one of mine. It is idle to pretend that the Government of to-day resting as it does on that overwhelming majority in the House, is in the same category as the Government of 1920 or 1921, which in the first place did not want to continue controls, and, in the second place, would not have been given the power to do so, if they had wanted to do so.
My right hon. Friend's second point is that it is not enough to plan for two years ahead—we have to plan for five. But does the Home Secretary, who I know is an eminently kindly and reasonable soul—does he ask us to believe that if this Amendment were adopted no Government Department in Great Britain


would thereafter plan beyond two years ahead? Does he ask us to believe that? If he does, he is asking us to believe what I, at any rate, regard as utterly untrue. Suppose that the same argument had been advanced against the last Government, or rather the last but one—the Coalition Government. Suppose the then Prime Minister had come to us and said: "This is going to be at least a five years' war, and may be longer; and I cannot begin to undertake the operation unless I know that five years hence I shall still be having the power to carry it through." He had to make plans for five years ahead, and his Government had to plan for five years ahead. But his Government were under the necessity of coming annually to the House for renewal of their powers.
There was another point the Home Secretary made which alarmed me—and when I get alarmed Britain is in danger. That was when he said that one of the causes of the breakdown of democracy in Europe was the undue exercise of criticism. We know that one of the causes of the breakdown of democracy in Europe was the undue suppression of criticism. When the Home Secretary said that I wondered whether the next Bill we are going to get from the Government would be a Bill for the suppression of "dangerous thoughts," because it is only one stage from lamenting criticism to proposing steps to deal with it. I was alarmed about that, especially from the Home Secretary, because he is the man more than any other Minister, who has the power to put us away. What might be an amiable indiscretion from one of his colleagues becomes a very sinister thing indeed from the Home Secretary, who is in charge of the police.
10.45 p.m.
I want to make another point, and it is this. There is a worse thing than capitalism and a worse thing than Communism, and that is in leaving one and not arriving at the other. Whatever Bills the Government carry through in this Parliament, this country at the end of a five-year period will still be a capitalist country. Carry your Bill for the nationalisation of the mines. Nationalise road transport and electricity, and the other things referred to in the programme, and still, at the end of five years, the essential structure of this country will be capitalist. I do not think anybody can

deny that. Because there will not be enough legislation passed to uproot capitalism. What this Bill does is to give the Government enormous powers to ham-string capitalism. It gives it no power to establish Socialism. As hon. Members may well find if they are not careful, they will run into the danger of which Bernard Shaw warned the Socialist movement in this country years ago in his "Intelligent Woman's Guide to Capitalism and Socialism," which I commend to the notice of all on both sides. They may find they have lost the advantages, such as they are, of one state of society, without achieving the advantages of another. I suggest that thought for the reflection of hon. Members. It is a reflection Russia had to make at a certain point in its evolution.
In this House the Government have a majority of 200 over every possible combination against them. That is roughly the set-up. At the end of two years, if they still want these powers, they could come to the House and get them. I should have thought that if ever there was a Government "sitting pretty" in that particular regard, it is the Government which now sits on that bench. It is not only the Opposition they have to carry with them—not only my party they have to carry with them. They have to carry the good sense of the country. I am sure they have the good will of the country. But good will is a good thing that can melt like snow under the strains of life. They have not only to start with good will. I believe they have got that. They have my good will. Though I have some doubt about their capacity. But I tell them with some knowledge of the English, the best way to retain the good will of the people is to make it plain that they are prepared to meet any reasonable criticism which does not frustrate the objects for which they have been returned. There is not here unwillingness to give them extensive powers, but the request is that when they have had them for two years it might be time to give the House some statement of how they have got on. I would not object to an Amendment in that sense. The Government are strong enough to be generous in things of this kind, above all in things in which the prestige of the House of Commons is involved.

Captain Crookshank: I think my hon. Friends are ready to take a decision now


on this point. May I for this side of the Committee congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devizes (Squadron Leader Hollis) on his brilliant maiden speech, and say we, too, look forward to hearing him again. May I also say how extremely disappointed we were at the Home Secretary's failure to answer the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). The Home Secretary found himself in rather a dilemma because at one time he was saying "We, the Government, must have these powers for five years in order to form the basis of a long term plan" and then he said in the very next sentence "You cannot have a long-term plan if you have to come to the House after two years." That was the dilemma or test submitted to the right hon. Gentleman by the hon. Member who has just spoken. He said that in his view if the Government come back to the House after two years they would have to ask for most of the powers now in the Bill and, ex hypothesiif, after two years they could count on the support of the same number as to-night they presumably would get exactly the same powers, with the difference that the House as a whole would have had the opportunity of looking at the picture once more without granting powers for so long a period.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary disappointed me because he did not deal with the point which is the really important one. After all, he says democracy is on its trial and must not fall into disrespect. I do not think this House of Commons is likely to fall into disrespect. Everyone thinks of the extraordinarily fine part the House played throughout the war when the then Prime Minister came and told us of the difficult endeavours in which the Government were engaged on behalf of the nation. But the Home Secretary really tried us a little when he said the danger that was to be watched against was over-criticism—"the over-exercise of criticism" were his words. But surely it is for the purpose of criticising that hon. Members are sent here. Hon. Members are not sent here

primarily to support this, or that, or the other thing. They are sent here primarily as representatives of their constituencies, for whom they speak in this House. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anybody else that there often arise occasions upon which the most loyal member of a party finds himself in criticism of leaders of his party because of some paramount point raised by his constituents, and all leaders of parties recognise that this is a possibility and it is something for which they always show respect. We come as Members of Parliament, elected by our own constituents, and these powers are just the sort of thing about which all our constituents are going to be worried in the years during which this Bill lasts.

We are individually responsible and that is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington pointed out that we would be shirking our job if we gave these great powers to the Executive for so long a period as five years—which outruns the lifetime of this Parliament. Make no mistake about that, because this Act will continue in force five years and last after that shorter period unless there is some intention of prolonging the life of Parliament, of which there is no indication. It is a disappointment to us that the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with these great issues at all. He spoke of wanting a long-term plan and said that more people to-day were prepared now to believe that the future is likely to be grim. Having heard some of the speeches made by right hon. Gentlemen since the Election, I agree that is probably true, because they have, rightly, given warning of the dangers and difficulties ahead, and it is for that reason we do not agree to give so long a period as five years. We feel we would be shirking our job as Members of Parliament if we gave the Executive these long-term powers and we do not intend to shuffle out of our responsibilities.

Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 306; Noes, 183.

Division No. 4.
AYES.
[10.55 p.m.


Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)
Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Bacon, Miss A.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Baird, Capt. J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Attewell, H. C.
Balfour, A.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Austin, H. L.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Awbery, S. S.
Barstow, P. G.


Alpass, J. H.
Ayles, W. H.
Barton, C.




Bechervaise, A. E.
Grierson, E.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Bellenger, F. J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Benson, G.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby).


Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Oldfield, W. H.


Binns, J.
Guy, W. H.
Oliver, G. H.


Blackburn, A. R.
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J.
Orbach, M.


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Hale, L.
Paget, R. T.


Blyton, W. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Boardman, H.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bottomley, A. G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Parker, J.


Bowles, F. G.
Hardman, D. R.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Hardy, E. A.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Harrison, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Pearson, A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Brown, George (Belper)
Herbison, Miss M.
Perrins, W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hicks, G.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hobson, C. R.
Popplewell, E.


Buchanan, G.
Holman, P.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Burden, T. W.
House, G.
Pritt, D. N.


Burke, W. A.
Hoy, J.
Proctor, W. T.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hubbard, T.
Pryde, D. J.


Callaghan, James.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, H. E.


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Ranger, J.


Chater D.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Hynd H. (Hackney, C.)
Reeves, J.


Clitherow, R.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Cluse, W. S.
Janner, B.
Richards, R.


Cobb, F. A.
Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Cocks, F. S.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Robens, A.


Coldrick, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)


Collick, P.
Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Collindridge, F.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Royle, C.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Keenan, W.
Sargood, R.


Cook, T. F.
Kenyon, C.
Scollan, T.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Key, C. W.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Corlett, Dr. J.
King, E. M.
Segal, Sq. Ldr. S.


Corvedale, Maj. Viscount
Kinley, J.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)


Crawley, Flt-Lieut. A.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Leonard, W.
Shurmer, P.


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Silkin, L.


Daines, P.
Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.
Silverman, J. (Erdington).


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Davies, A. E. (Burslem)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Simmons, C. J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lindgren, G. S.
Skeffington, A. M.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skeffington-Lodge, Lt. T. C.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Longden, F.
Skinnard, F. W.


Deer, G.
Lyne, A. W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir B. (Rotherhithe)


de Freitas, Sqn.-Ldr. G.
McAllister, G.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)


Diamond, J.
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Donovan, T.
Mack, J. D.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Douglas, F. C. R.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
McLeavy, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dumpleton, C. W.
MacMillan, M. K.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Sparks, J. A.


Dye, S.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Stamford, W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Steele, T.


Edwards, John (Blackburn).
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Stewart, Maj. M. (Fulham, E.)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Strachey, J.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Marquand, H. A.
Strauss, G. R.


Fairhurst, F.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Stubbs, A. E.


Farthing, W. J.
Mathers, G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mayhew, Maj. C. P.
Swingler, Capt. S.


Follick, M.
Medland, H. M.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Foot, M. M.
Messer, F.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Foster, W. (Wigan)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Monslow, W.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F
Thomas, J. R. (Dover)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Gibbins, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Thomson, G. R. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gibson, C. W.
Morley, R.
Thorneycroft, H.


Gilzean, A.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Tiffany, S.


Glanville, J.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham)
Titterington, M. F.


Goodrich, H. E.
Moyle, A.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Gould, Mrs. B. Ayrton
Murray, J. D.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Nally, W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L.


Grenfell, D. R.
Naylor, T. E.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Grey, C. F.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Viant, S. P.







Walkden, E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Walker, P. C. G. (Smethwick)
Whittaker, J. E.
Wilson, J. H.


Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Wigg, Lt.-Col. G. E. C.
Wise, Major F. J.


Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Woodburn, A.


Warbey, W. N.
Wilkes, Maj. L.
Woods, G. S.


Watkins, T. E.
Willey, F. T. (Sutherland)
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Yates, V. F.


Weitzman, D.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Younger, Maj. The Hon. K. G.


Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)
Zilliacus, K.


Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)



White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Willis, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Mr. R. J. Taylor and Mr. J Joseph




Henderson.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr, P. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)


Aitken, Gp. Capt. The Hon. M.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.


Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.
Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hon. J. H.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.


Astor, Hon. M.
Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.
Nicholson, G.


Baldwin, A. E.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Nield, B.


Barlow, Sir J.
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Baxter, A. B.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Nutting, A.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Birch, Lt.-Col. N.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley
Pitman, I. J.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Holt, Lieut.-Comdr. J. L.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bossom, A. C.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Lord J.
Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bowen, Capt. R.
Horabin, T. L.
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.


Bower, N.
Howard, The Hon. A.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.
Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.
Raikes, H. V.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hurd, A.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh W.)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Jarvis, Sir J.
Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)


Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Carson, E.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. The Hn. L. W.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Challen, Flt-Lieut. C.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. J. R.


Channon, H.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lambert, Lt.-Col. G.
Ross, Sir R.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Scott, Lord W.


Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Shepherd, Lieut. W. S.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Smithers, Sir W.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Lipson, D. L.
Snadden, W. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.).
Spearman, A. C. M.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirral)
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lloyd-George, Lady M. (Anglesey)
Stoddart-Scott, Lt.-Col. M.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Studholme, Maj. H. G.


De la Bère, R.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Teeling, Flt.-Lieut. W.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Mackeson, Col. H. R.
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C.
M'Kie, J. H. (Galloway)
Turton, R. H.


Duthie, W. S.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Wadsworth, G.


Erroll, Col. F. J.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Ward, Group-Capt. The Hon. G. R.


Foster, Brig. J. G. (Northwich)
Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A. A. H.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fox, Sir G.
Marples, Capt. A. E.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.


Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir I.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
While, Sir D. (Fareham)


Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Maude, J. C.
White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)


Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Mellor, Sir J.
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Molson, A. H. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Glossop, C. W. H.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
York, C.


Glyn, Sir R.
Morris, R. H. (Carmarthen)



Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Gridley, Sir A.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and Major




Sir Arthur Young.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 139.

Division No. 5.
AYES.
[11.10 p.m.


Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)
Griffiths, Capt, W. D. (Moss Side)
Pearson, A.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Guy, W. H.
Perrins, W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Alpass, J. H.
Hale, L.
Popplewell, E.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Pritt, D. N.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Proctor, W. T.


Austin, H. L.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Pryde, D. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Hardy, E. A.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bacon, Miss A.
Harrison, J.
Randall, H. E.


Baird, Capt. J.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Ranger, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.


Barton, C.
Herbison, Miss M.
Reeves, J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hewitson, Captain M.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Bellenger, F. J.
Hobson, C. R.
Richards, R.


Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.
Holman, P.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
House G.
Robens, A.


Blackburn, A. R.
Hoy, J.
Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Hubbard, T.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Blyton, W. R.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Royle, C.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Sargood, R.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Scollan, T.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Segal, Sq. Ldr. S.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Janner, B.
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)


Brown, George (Belper)
Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)
Shurmer, P.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington).


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Simmons, C. J.


Burden, T. W.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Skeffington, A. M.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Skeffington-Lodge, Lt. T. C.


Callaghan, James.
Keenan, W.
Skinnard, F. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Kenyon, C.
Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir B. (Rotherhithe)


Champion, A. J.
King, E. M.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Cocks, F. S.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Coldrick, W.
Leonard, W.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Collick, P.
Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.
Sorensen, R. W.


Collindridge, F.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sparks, J. A.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Lindgren, G. S.
Steele, T.


Cook, T. F.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stewart, Maj. M. (Fulham, E.)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Longden, F.
Strachey, J.


Corlett, Dr. J.
McAllister, G.
Strauss, G. R.


Daggar, G.
Mack, J. D.
Stubbs, A. E.


Daines, P.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Swingler, Capt. S.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
McLeavy, F.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacMillan, M. K.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Deer, G.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


de Freitas, Sqn.-Ldr. G.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Diamond, J.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thomas, J. R. (Dover)


Donovan, T.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Douglas, F. C. R.
Mathers, G.
Thomson, G. R. (Edinburgh, E.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Medland, H. M.
Thorneycroft, H.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Messer, F.
Tiffany, S.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Dye, S.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Monslow, W.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Montague, F.
Walkden, E.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Walker, P. C. G. (Smethwick)


Fairhurst, F.
Morley, R.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Farthing, W. J.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham)
Warbey, W. N.


Follick, M.
Moyle, A.
Watkins, T. E.


Foot, M. M.
Murray, J. D.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Foster, W. (Wigan)
Nally, W.
Weitzman, D.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Gibbins, J.
Noel-Baker,Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby).
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Gibson, C. W.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Gilzean, A.
Oldfield, W. H.
Whittaker, J. E.


Glanville, J.
Oliver, G. H.
Wigg, Lt.-Col. G. E. C.


Goodrich, H. E.
Orbach, M.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Gould, Mrs. B. Ayrton
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Grenfell, D. R.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Grierson, E.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Willis, E.







Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Woodburn, A.
Zilliacus, K.


Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.
Wyatt, Maj. W.



Wilson, J. H.
Yates, V. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Wise, Major F. J.
Younger, Maj. The Hon. K. G.
Mr. R. J. Taylor and Mr. Joseph




Henderson.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.


Aitken, Gp. Capt. The Hon. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.


Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.
Grimston, R. V.
Nield, B.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hon. J. H.
Nutting, A.


Baxter, A. B.
Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Pitman, I. J.


Birch, Lt.-Col. N.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bossom, A. C.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.


Bowen, Capt. R.
Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Bower, N.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Holt, Lieut.-Comdr. J. L.
Raikes, H. V.


Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Lord J.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Howard, The Hon. A.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n
Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Carson, E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh W.).
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. J. R.


Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)
Ross, Sir R.


Channon, H.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. The Hn. L. W.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Scott, Lt.-Col. Lord W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shepherd, Lieut. W. S.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smithers, Sir W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lipson, D. L.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.).
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.


Crowder, Capt.J. F. E.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Stoddart-Scott, Lt.-Col. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Studholme, Maj. H. G.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Digby, Maj S. Wingfield
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Turton, R. H.


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Mackeson, Col. H. R.
Wadsworth, G.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
M'Kie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.


Drewe, C.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Ward, Group-Capt. The Hon. G. R.


Duthie, W. S.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.


Erroll, Col. F. J.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A. A. H.
Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)


Foster, Brig. J. G. (Northwich)
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Fox, Sir G.
Maude, J. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Medlicott, Brig. F.



Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Mellor, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Molson, A. H. E.
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and Major


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Sir Arthur Yonng.


Gammans, Capt. L D.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)

CLAUSE 9.—(Short title and interpretation.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McKie: May I ask the Government, in view of the shrinkage in the poll, shown in the division lobbies, and the fact that the Under Secretary of State—

The Chairman: The question does not arise—

Mr. McKie: On a point of Order. Is it not in Order for an Opposition Member to ask the Government their intentions on a Bill of primary importance on which every Division shows a shrinkage in the number of Members voting?

The Chairman: The Question now is that Clause 9 stand part of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(Saving for legislative powers of Parliament of Northern Ireland.)

Nothing in this Act shall restrict the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws with respect to any matter with respect to which that Parliament has power to make laws, and any laws made by that Parliament with respect to any such matters shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any Defence Regulation having effect by virtue of this Act and applicable to Northern Ireland, or in any order or other instrument made under such a Regulation.—[Mr. Ede.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Bill applies throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland as well as Great Britain. As I explained during the Debate on the Second Reading, and as has been raised during the course of this evening by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute (Sir C. MacAndrew) certain of the purposes covered by Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 may relate to matters falling within the legislative powers of Northern Ireland. These purposes cannot easily be dissociated from other purposes which are limited to matters reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. There have been negotiations between the Government of Northern Ireland and myself and the Government of Northern Ireland are satisfied that the form of words we propose to include in the Bill will amply safeguard their legislative independence.

Sir R. Ross: This is a Bill in which I have had a considerable interest, and I am afraid if I had known the Home Secretary's views on criticism, I should have had a great deal more interest in it. However, this new Clause I do welcome, as it safeguards the legislative authority of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. It would be a most extraordinary thing if it was suggested that at this stage anything should be done which would interfere with the Parliament's legitimate statutory and constitutional functions as set out in the Act of 1920. The right hon. Gentleman has already said there will be full consultation in all matters connected with this Bill and its future operations and I think that this Clause is not only to be welcomed, but is also very necessary, in order to clarify the position for no other part of the United Kingdom is run on the federal system, and our position has not always been quite clear. This Clause makes it clear that the functions of the Parliament of Northern Ireland are not affected and it can pass its own laws, which it could pass under the 1920 Act.

Earl Winterton: I suggest that a rather unusual constitutional position has arisen over this matter. At an earlier stage the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to make rather drastic Amendments, and I am sorry if I had some rather harsh things to say. I do wish to congratulate him on the way he has conducted the Bill,

but there is now a rather more important point. The constitutional position must have been known when the Bill was in draft. It has not arisen only in connection with this Bill. My recollection, as one who was for a short time a Minister at the Home Office—and the right hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong—is that the constitutional position was not clear. Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether these negotiations which have been going on with the Government of Northern Ireland arose as a result of the fact that this Clause was left out of the original Bill and the Government of Northern Ireland drew his attention to it? If so, it was very bad drafting by whoever was responsible.

Mr. Ede: I wish to assure the Noble Lord that anything which he has said earlier to-day has not given me the slightest cause for offence, and in fact I cannot think of what he is alluding to. I have known the Noble Lord in this House for a long time, and like the tow-paths on the side of the River Thames, we take him as we find him. However, earlier I made a complete confession that in the original draft of the Bill and in the revised draft which this Government submitted, Northern Ireland was omitted. I admit I ought to have known it, but I overlooked it and I apologise to the Committee. The Northern Ireland Government drew my attention to the position in which they were placed and we then went into negotiations to see what form of words would safeguard their position. They are satisfied with these, and may I assure the Noble Lord that after this experience, as far as the Home Office is concerned, I shall always inquire when bringing in a Bill, whether the Government of Northern Ireland is affected or not? I do not undertake always to take their view, but I will certainly take their opinion, and I hope that future amendments of this kind will be avoided.

11.30 p.m.

Lord Winterton: I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the whole Committee for the graceful way he has apologised to the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(Additional Defence Regulations to which Section One of this Act applies.)

Mr. Oliver: I beg to move, in page 7, leave out lines 9 to 10.
This deletes from the Schedule Regulations 5 and 8 of the Defence (Companies Regulation) Act of 1940. Regulation 5 relates to the registration in this country of companies incorporated in the Channel Islands; and Regulation 8 enables Northern Ireland companies to engage in the production and processing of flax. Therefore these Regulations will more properly be dealt with in the Bill which, as announced by the Home Secretary on Second Reading, is to be introduced to retain temporarily various miscellaneous Regulations which may be required after the expiry of the Emergency Powers Defence Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Oliver: I beg to move, in page 7, leave out lines 15 and 16.
This deletes from the Schedule, Regulation 4 of the Defence (Functions of Ministers) Regulation, 1941. Regulation 4 transfers from the Forestry Commissioners to the Minister of Supply the general duty of promoting the production and supply of timber. This again may be more properly dealt with in the miscellaneous Bill which will be required on the expiry of the Emergency Powers Defence Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Oliver: I beg to move, in page 7, leave out lines 19 to 22, and insert:
The Defence (Recovery of Fines) Regulations, 1942. All Regulations in force at the said date. The Defence (Recovery of Fines) (Scotland) Regulations, 1942. All Regulations in force at the said date.
This Amendment involves the omission of certain patent regulations which will more conveniently be dealt with in the miscellaneous Bill in connection with the expiration of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act.

Mr. McKie: I have no desire at this late hour to delay proceedings on the Bill, but I would like to refer to the somewhat perfunctory way in which the Amendment was moved. I do not wish to be disrespectful to the hon. Gentleman or to the Committee, but he has not made very clear what the point of the Amend-

ment to the Schedule is. I would like to ask him, of his legal knowledge, how this relates to the Kingdom of Scotland, which he has specifically mentioned in what he read out. May I ask him for a reply? I must press him on this point.

Mr. Oliver: The Recovery of Fines Regulations provide for the collection of large fines which may be inflicted under the Defence Regulations connected with black market offences. The Regulation enabling these large fines to be incurred have to be retained as part of the mechanism of the economic control, and it follows that Recovery of Fines Regulations provided to deal more effectively than the existing law with persons who were engaged in black market activities must be retained. Without Regulations an offender can pocket his ill-gotten gains and serve a short term of imprisonment in lieu of payment of a fine imposed by the court.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(Provisions of Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939–1940, excepted from continuance under this Act.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 7, line 39, column 2, at the end, to insert:
Section five. The whole section (which does not relate to Defence Regulations)".
I can deal with this point quite shortly, but I think it is one that ought to be dealt with. When one compares this Bill with the Bill introduced previously one finds that there were three additions made by the Government to the old Bill and one deletion from the old Bill, and in my view, the old Bill being so very much better than the new Bill, I thought it right to ask the Government the reason why they have made this omission from the old Bill. The old Bill did contain a provision that Section 5 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, should be excepted from continuance. Now we find Section 5 is not excepted from continuance under this Act, so it means Section 5 will continue to operate. Section 5 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act dealt with the extra-territorial operation of Defence Regulations of certain Dominions territory, and refers to ships or aircraft


registered in the Commonwealth or Dominion, and things of that sort. I am at a loss to know why the Government want to retain that Section in operation, unless it be that they indeed want their powers of control to be completely unlimited. I do hope we shall have an explanation of the alteration between this Bill and the last.

Mr. Oliver: The matter referred to by my hon. Friend has only been omitted because of the change in the drafting of Clause 5 (2) and by reason of the change in drafting it becomes unnecessary to insert Section 5 in the Schedule. In the Schedule now, Section 5 of the 1939 Act empowers the Parliaments of Australia and New Zealand to pass Defence Regulations which will have extra-territorial effect and has nothing to do with Defence Regulations. Clause 5 (2a) of the Bill only applies the provision of the principal Act so far as applicable to Defence Regulations having effect by virtue of the Bill and subordinate instruments made under this Regulation. Section 5 of the 1939 Act cannot possibly be regarded as applicable to such Defence Regulations, so that it is not necessary. By virtue of this change in the drafting it becomes redundant to put into effect the hon. Member's amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not sure I have been able to follow the extremely complicated explanation given by the hon. Gentleman opposite. It may be, perhaps, because of the long time we have been debating this matter to-day. When this Bill becomes an Act, if it becomes an Act, does Section 5 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, continue in force, or not? That is what I should like the hon. Gentleman to answer.

Mr. Oliver: Yes, not coming within the exceptions, of course, it would continue to remain in force.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I put one further question? What is the purpose of keeping Section 5 of this Act in force when it has nothing to do with the Defence Regulations made in this country?

Mr. Oliver: We are not suggesting any alteration in the Statute as it now appears. If my hon. Friend requires Section 5 to be within the exceptions, I think his Amendment is misconceived.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am afraid that I do not follow that argument at all. The second Schedule is headed
Provisions of Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940, excepted from continuance under this Act
and the one Section which was excepted from the second Schedule to the old Bill which is not excepted from continuance under this Bill is Section 5, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain why he wants Section 5 of the 1939 Act kept in force when it has nothing to do with the Defence Regulation made under this Act. Is it just the desire of the Government to make these Acts as complicated as possible and to keep in force Sections of other Statutes which have no relation to the subject matter of the Act? I would ask my hon. Friend to answer that question.

Mr. Oliver: It is difficult to comply with that request for this reason: that if an explanation is given to my hon. Friend he complains about its being complicated. The only explanation which can he given of this Sub-section is a complicated one. For his express benefit I will read the Clause which matters: Clause 5 (2) says:
If the principal Acts expire while this Act is in force—
(a) the provisions of those Acts, except the provisions, specified in the Second Schedule to this Act, shall, notwithstanding their expiry for all other purposes, continue to apply (so far as applicable) while this Act is in force to any Defence Regulation having effect by virtue of this Act, any order or other instrument made under any such Regulation and any scheme of control contained in or authorised by any such Regulation.
Now that makes it quite clear. [Laughter.] At any rate it has made it clear to the hon. Member, who having read the paragraph ventures to draft an Amendment and to submit it for the consideration of the Committee. It is true that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) may have had difficulties in understanding this matter but his learned friend who has written up the Amendment and submitted it has no difficulty in understanding the implications of it.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Hogg: Since the hon. Gentleman has appealed to me, may I say that I do find something difficult and I cannot help saying I am perhaps not the only one on this occasion. The hon. Member for


Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) put a very small question to the hon. Gentleman opposite. He said, "Does this Section still apply?" and the hon. Gentleman opposite said, "It does." Lest there be any doubt as to which Section I refer to, it is Section 5 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939. It refers to extra-territorial operations of Defence Legislation in certain Dominions, etc., and goes on for a page and a quarter of legislative print
Now my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry asked this very simple question, whether that rather lengthy Section still applies, and the answer the hon. Gentleman gave was yes, it did. Then he went on to say that it is all explained in Clause 5 (2) of this Bill. Now Clause 5 (2), which makes it so plain to everybody except me, is that certain provisions of those Acts shall continue to apply so far as applicable and the express statement the hon. Gentleman made was that obviously they were not applicable. In one breath he seems to say that this Section does apply, and in the next phrase he says it is obvious to everybody that they are not applicable. It may be that all this is very plain, but I venture to think that the hon. Gentleman was not justified in pillorying me as the only hon. Member who did not understand it. I venture to suggest that if in the serried ranks I see around me a straight question was put, "Do you understand the question put by the Under Secretary?" most hon. Members would find themselves in the same difficulty as myself. Indeed this is not a party question. I do suggest that if we are to understand the legislation

we are asked to pass we should be afforded by the Government slightly more lucid explanations than those which have been read out from a previously prepared brief by the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

Orders of the Day — COATBRIDGE AND SPRINGBURN ELECTIONS (VALIDATION) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third Time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — LIBRARY (HOUSE OF COMMONS)

Select Committee appointed to inquire into the present state of the Library of the House of Commons:

Mr. Benson, Mr. Seymour Cocks, Mr. Douglas, Professor Gruffydd, Mr. James Hudson, Mr. John Paton, Mr. Pickthorn, Professor Savory and Mr. E. P. Smith.

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Three to be the quorum—[Mr. Mathers.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes to Twelve o'clock